Talk:MGM-31 Pershing/Archive 1

Nomenclature
Is it MGM-31 (title), or MGM-32 (opening sentence)? -- Kimiko 06:39, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Move
Propose that MGM-31 Pershing be moved back to Pershing missile. The MGM-31 designation was used only on the Pershing I and IA models. An exhaustive search of documentation shows no useage of MGM or any other designator for Pershing II or Pershing 1B. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved. Shimgray | talk | 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To do

 * Jericho missile possible technology transfer
 * Protests during PII deployment
 * Pershing Plowshares
 * 


 * The Seneca Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice
 * ✅ Explosion in 1985
 * PII expansion
 * ✅ Specs
 * ✅ Pop culture
 * ✅ Weird Science
 * ✅ Women in Pershing
 * 46N
 * Field Artillery Journal - ISSN:0191-975x


 * CAS Sites
 * The German aritlce has coordinates.


 * Organization section.
 * Ordnance units
 * USAFAD
 * FAMSEG

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Contraction 1: self, Pershing II - Range in miles/km contradiction
In this section is stated increase the range to 900 mi (1,600 km). Well, 1,600 km isn't equivalent to 900 miles. So, what's the correct value 900 miles or 1,600 km? MikeZ 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get from copying government publications. Since that was a preliminary specification, I suspect they just rounded it a bit. I haven't done the PII specs yet, but the actual unclassified range was 1080 mi / 1738 km. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Contraction 2: other, SS-20
The sentence Since the SS-20 had a range of 2,700 mi (4,400 km) and two warheads, contradicts the information in the SS-20 article (range 5,500 km, three warheads). Not being an expert at all, I can't say what's right. Anyone who could clarify this? Cheers, MikeZ 11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From the SS-20 article:

So, these numbers are right for the earlier variant of the SS-20 when PII was in the design process. The Smithsonian has the same numbers. The SS-20 infobox shows specs only for the final variant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Name
I'm not going to push this right now, but there is no evidence that Pershing 2 had any MGM designator. The production Pershing 1 was MGM-31A and Pershing 1A was MGM-31B designator. Some sources show MGM-31C for Pershing II; but even Designation Systems is unsure on this. TM 9-1425-386-10-1 Pershing II Weapon System Description uses no M designator for the missile, although it has designations for all of the vehicles and ground support vans.

I think that eventually we will have one overall article and three articles for the three missiles. We need infoboxes, but three different boxes will overwhelm the article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Elimination of Pershing 2
There were still Pershing 2's in deployment in Germany until at least 1991, not removal of missiles in 1988, and destruction in 1991. 64th Ord(Fischbach Army Depot), 9th Ord( Miesau), 169th Ord( Eisenberg) had P2's present until at least that time. Nathraq 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics
I wonder whether there ought to be a link here about the political significance of these missiles. Along with cruise missiles, their deployment boosted the anti-nuclear campaign among Europeans (Cf Jordan, Europe and the Superpowers).-- User:twilkosta 14:15(GMT)


 * It is on the todo list (I pushed the list back to the top here). There is a great potential for an article on "European missile protests".  I do have a neat Pershing protest poster from the Greens that would be a great image anchor.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual
Is the Pershing 1a manual link provided for DIY enthusiasts? :) Radchenk (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No— it is of historical value and much of the technology is obsolete. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

References update needed!
wiki.perchingmissile.org is no longer maintianed and is full of spam. 76.103.239.89 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy
The Pershing 2, if I recall, was the most accurate missle in the US arsenal. It was also the first warhead that would arrive in Moscow should SIOP ever be acted upon. As such, it was ideal for a decapitation strike of the Soviet leadership, should that have ever been desired. I imagine the war planners were sorry to see it go. Does my memory serve me correctly? If so, perhaps we can add this... --Commking 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pershing 2 was a tactical weapon, intended to achieve parity with the Soviet tank divisions and to counter the RSD-10 (SS-20). With a 50 kT warhead and a 1 30 meter CEP it was not a city buster but a precision weapon for targets such as armored columns, airfields, command centers and the like.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Historian, Pershing Professionals Association


 * It is interesting that you state a CEP of 1m for the Pershing II, while the article shows a CEP of 30m. Do you have a reference for this? I think it might be important to state this value in the article since, as this discussion claims, the PII was a precision weapon.Numbermaster (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a typo on my part here; 30m is both correct and verifiable. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Word has it SIOP said otherwise. For a decapitation strike, Pershing 2 had no peer. If someone can tell me a better way for such an attack, I look forward to it. --Commking 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what SIOP said, as it has been a long time since I have even looked at the declassified stuff on it, but I do know that the Pershing II was indeed not a strategic asset. The Air Force and Navy owned all of the strategic-range ballistic missiles.  With its relatively short range (900 mi) it was designed for striking forward deployed Soviet Army forces, airfields and C3 assets.  I am with Gadget on this.  BTW, for a great discussion on ballistic missile accuracy, check out the book Inventing Accuracy: a historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance by Donald Mackenzie. —Andrew 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentzer has a great map on page 423. The PII range was just short of Moscow, but it wasn't developed for that purpose. Pershing was part of a package: the slower but longer range GLCM to take out fixed targets, the faster Pershng to take out mobile and other targets of opportunity and Lance for the short range stuff. Then throw bombers into the mix. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While 30 meters CEP is a nice one, it should be noted that it could not be always achievable even in principle. You see, it was required to have radar maps of the area before launch, to pre-program them into the missile. What if you had to launch the missile, but did not have maps? Then CEP would be a lot more than 30 meters. And this should definitely be mentioned. It mentions in the article that in emergency, a pure-ballistic trajectory could be used, but then we should edit in the specifications part of the article as well. If we want to write truth that is. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Countering SS-20
It was not there to counter SS-20, for a simple reason that it was not able to do so. Compare specifications of these two missiles and you will see that SS-20 and Pershing were of different class of destruction capabilities, as well as range. Pershing was indeed deployed as a response to SS-20, but only as a mobile counter strike force, in an emergency case of a preemptive attack by SS-20 (Pershing, being mobile, would be very hard to account for). In fact, Pershing was the only hope of NATO to respond after soviet attack, because judging by the numbers of SS-20, they had capability to destroy all NATO nuclear capable objects, including Pershing, and then even be able to strike cities. So, once again, my point was that Pershing never had capability to counter SS-20 (simply because SS-20s could destroy all Pershing missiles and remain outside of their range), but was rather a system in place to threaten Moscow and make soviets think twice before attacking.99.231.50.118 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * Expanded now that I found NATO Double-Track Decision and I don't have to explain all of this in full. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Engines vs. Motors
As an old rocket engineer, just would like to point out that liquid rockets have engines while solid rockets have motors. In 30 years, I never bothered to learn where this comes from, but it is how people in the field talk about them. Of course, this article keeps talking about the "engines" of these solid rocket powered missiles which is incorrect - I'll let you experts make the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pershing IA: Medium-range ballistic missile ?
As Pershing IA by definition was no MRBM, one cannot say Pershing was a family of MRBM. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete technical aspects that you may not fully understand
If you say active radar homing does not describe the Pershing terminal guidance system, then please explain what exact type of terminal guidance system does the Pershing II use? --Arado (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The title is rather insulting. But I'm just going to walk away for a month or so before I return to get this to GA. Looks like I will have to work on active radar homing at some point. I do have a few more documents in my personal library to add to Pershing missile bibliography. And there are more updates to Pershing missile launches needed. --  Gadget850talk 02:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Split
After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history I have an expanded draft at Draft:Pershing II Weapon System. --21lima (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Women: undue weight
I boldly remove the "Women" section on the basis of undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rulatir (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD. The presence of women in the U.S. Army Field Artillery was quite unique at the time. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Still off-topic, undue weight, out-of-the-blue, notability unestablished
I removed this again for undue weight. The text as it is/was did not establish notability as asserted by Gadget850. Exactly who operates the system has not been included and established as germane. At the time, many systems were becoming operated by crews with women in them. How exactly was this unique and notable? Explanatory text for that is needed along with supporting reliable refs. When that's included, then this material can be included in that context. Until then, it's unnotable, out of the blue, WP:undue, and off topic. 50.169.37.57 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it out for now. I'm here for the long run. And see WP:BRD. --21lima (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women. --21lima (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be sure to follow up in the long run too. The material could readily be included, it just needs some sort of additional transitional text. It's a high school English class kind of thing. The additional text would need to establish how it's notable in a time when women were newly-operating all kinds of systems (I knew many of them). Without that, the subject looks out-of-place (off-topic, unnotable, etc.) Since, you're in it for the long run, maybe you can do that research? 50.169.37.57 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have it on my calendar for 2020. --21lima (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)