Talk:SNEB

How to edit and information, etc on this article

 * DAVE, I found a lot more detailed information on SNEB rockets. Type and type number, etc.  Do you wish for me to limit the discussion to just the 68mm rocket, or the earlier 37mm and later 100mm rockets?  Also, the two external links are worthless now.  One is "not found" and the other is totally worthless as to the information that Thules provides I have also made some edits to warheads --Jackehammond (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, maybe you could list them out here first then we'll sort them out and see how best to work it out/arrange them into workable format for display in the article. Cheers~! --Dave 1185 09:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, AIRCRAFT ARMAMENTS RECOGNITION/1989 edition by Christopher Chant, publisher Ian Allan, pages 113-114, ISBN 0 7110 1841 3. Page 113 and Page 114.  Please delete this entry in a few days. Also, when someone in Indiana who did not file his papers away as he should have, I will provide some more info, etc from the manufacture Brandt provided in 1985-86.  --Jackehammond (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Thanks Jack, give me some time to work on this... also, I've got an annoying lil'bastard who keeps inserting biased/inflammatory text on another article page I'm working on now. --Dave 1185 05:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename to SNEB rocket?
Is there any gain from renaming this article? The topic is clearly the rocket itself, rather than SNEB their manufacturer. Many of the articles link this as "SNEB rocket" anyway, although "SNEB 68mm rocket" and variants is also common. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I guess this maybe unavoidable, a good case for comparison is the Zuni (rocket)/Tiny Tim (rocket) and CRV7, but SNEB has always been spelt out in caps so I'm not sure this is really feasible. Well, what say we stay with the obviously more common form, as in just "SNEB", to avoid further confusing people out there? Thoughts? BTW, good to know that you've just created a redirect to the current article, I was going to get to that but you beat me to it as I got held up by work. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I created the redir, not because it's a good canonical name for the article but just because it makes the best link from within other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on SNEB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028161632/http://www.janes.com:80/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw2988.html to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw2988.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

116M pod
It says in the text that "the 116M pod has a frangible nose cone that disintigrates on firing, and the pod automatically jettisons when firing is completed". Right next to that is a photo of a pd that is captions "Type 116M rocket pod" that shows a normal rocket pod with openings in the front and a rounded nose cone. Where does the "frangbile nose cone" come in? If it is an already-fired rocket pod, why is is still on the plane and not lying somewhere on the ground after having been "automatically jettisoned"? There is clearly something missing here. I'd guess that the frangible nose cone proved to be a problematic idea and later they switched to using regular openings in the nose cone, but didn't change the name. Or the caption is just plain wrong.

Idumea47b (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)