Talk:MGM-52 Lance

formidable SRBM force?
I deleted the passage about US formidable SRBM force. You see, there was only one force to compare to back then, and that is USSR's SRBM force. And compared to it, USA's SRBM force was in no way formidable. USSR had far more missiles, USSR's missiles had longer range, larger warheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you're forgetting the French Pluton missile. Of course the numbers are not in the same league. Aesma (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

engine type
According to Designation Systems, the MGM-52 Lance was powered by a pair of liquid propellant rockets. Orihara (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And there's an interesting story here... The MGM-5 Corporal was the US Army's first tactical nuclear missile, and its main operational problem was its liquid fuel; Other problems were encountered early in its development and deployment but were able to be addressed, but not that one. So its replacement the MGM-29 Sergeant was solid fueled, but was in its turn replaced by the liquid fueled MGM-52 Lance. The evolution of liquid fueled rockets which made this possible is a fascinating subject which we don't seem to cover yet. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: MGM-52 Lance (section)
Removed. Content stolen from www.usarmygermany.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.135.198 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is fabulous. Wiki skims from other sites claiming it their own then won't allow anyone to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.135.198 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop stealing from usarmygermany.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.8.131 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

U.S. government material is all public domain and we all paid for it. How can we "steal" something that already belongs to us???74.61.32.25 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not taking material from a government site. You're taking copyright material from someone's personal site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.8.131 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Information in Operators Section due to Copyright?
This User has repeatedly removed the section "Operators" with the assertion that it contains copyrighted material. Several Users, including myself have just reverted his edits on this Page. I am opening this discussion in the hopes that a consensus can be reached and the constant reverting can be ended. I am notifying all of the editors involved in the hopes that the problem can be discussed here and a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. The constant reverting back and forth should stop, a consensus should be reached, and then we should all abide by it. Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP SECTION: NOT COPYRIGHTED OR FAIR USE


 * I don't understand how information on which countries used this missile is copyrighted it doesn't make sense. But posting Pages on the the article from the sited itself that i understand.--Corpusfury (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Corpusfury (talk) that the information itself is not copyrighted and as long as we do not copy their layout or phrasing it should be re-added. King of Nothing (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the person that keeps removing the content from the article is going to agree with this and going keep doing what he's doing i think we should at least block his editing privilege temporarily. as this person been engaging in edits wars for quite a while now.--Corpusfury (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but he should be given the chance. However, if the consensus ends up being to keep the information and then he does remove it, then he will be blocked. King of Nothing (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't copyright facts; only creative works can be copyrighted. This is a spurious claim and the information should be restored. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already restored the section in the article. No one should remove the Section without first getting a consensus for its removal--Corpusfury (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * SECTION SHOULD STAY REMOVED: COPYRIGHTED

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MGM-52 Lance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221234107/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/lance/welcome.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/lance/welcome.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MGM-52 Lance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910043644/http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/lance.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/lance.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910043644/http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/lance.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/lance.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)