User:Jackehammond/Archive 4

FGR-17 Viper Need description
Folks, I noticed that on the M72 LAW article there was a mention of the FGR-17 Viper but no article. There had been an entry a few years back, but it had been deleted for what ever reason. I have a lot of information about the history (ie it was a major defense scandal in the early 1980s) but very little on the hardware. I am lucky to still have a copy of the one photo that the US Army issued on the VIPER and the one brochure that General Dynamics issued (after 1983 both the US Army and GD attitude was "Viper? What Viper????"). But I would like add a description to the article. I know it was one of the first missiles to use fiberglass for the body and it was an electrical antitank rocket (ie firing the rocket and the warhead) and the iron sights. After that I go blank. From memory back in the 1980s I think the penetration was 400mm. Any help would be greatly appreciated.--Jackehammond (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, found this in the German wiki: "the FGR-17 Viper is an unguided anti-tank weapon, developed by the General Dynamics Pomona Division in Pomona, California for antitank use at close range. Conceived as a replacement for the LAW72 was the Viper since 1975 under the Improved LAW developed program. The term Viper, however, they only received 1976th On the part of the U.S. Army, the Viper Project Office was responsible, which also oversaw the development of the AT-4 and the FGM-148 Javelin. Starting in 1982 with a planned production volume of 90,000 units, was the production in October 1983 is already discontinued. The weapon had not only problems with their performance, but was also very sensitive to static electricity. In addition, unit costs were too great. Similar to the 3.73 kilograms heavy LAW72 the Viper could be used only once. It consisted of a two-launcher tube Glass fiber reinforced plastic, which was pushed into one another only 695 mm long. In the inner tube was the 70-mm grenade. To shoot the tubes were pulled apart at 1130 mm. The outside of the pipe were the shot triggering device, a metal shoulder stock, a sight as an adjustable rear sight holes and the sight posts. The effective range was 250 m, the Max range 500 meters, with a muzzle velocity of 255 m / s. The penetration of the 10-fin grenade was approximately 400 mm RHA." Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson Believe it or not, but I had actually checked the French and German WP for articles.  I found the Viper article as a link from the one on the Javelin missile (which btw, is better than the En WP article on that subject).  It is right on somethings, but wrong on others.  The Viper no metal shoulder stock and the inside pipe extends forward, the opposite of the M72.  It is neat trick how GD does this with the rocket staying in the larger back tube after extension till it is fired.  I was surprised the article knew about the static electricity problem.  I think I will have to post what I know from memory.  And if it is challenged then it can be removed.  For example that the box where the firing button is contained also has a 10 year battery and the dual skin nose type fuse (ie see the SS.11 article for picture of one).  Again, thanks for searching for something.  I have a feeling the only way I can get a really good description would be an FAO request, and it is not worth it. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson I am so upset that I can not see straight. I hunted and hunted for about four hours for that one poor quality photo that the US Army (they took the photo) sent me of the Viper.  With the Viper fiasco they pretty well destroyed all other copies.  Now I get an official notice saying they are going to delete it, because I can not give proof (ie an official US government website) that it is a US government photo.  Do they think that a commercial photographer working for a defense contractor would take such a lousy photo!  And the photo was taken in 1981 before the internet, so how can I give a link as a source?????  I notice that the photo of the 57mm recoiless rifle does not link back to a US government webpage.  It is a private webpage and they have no proof it is US government and they don't worry.  I would have been better not putting that photo on  WP Commons with a US government release and just posted it on Army Reconn and said it was my photo.  No one would have ever known, as everyone connected is old and in a nursing home or dead and buried.  So, to heck with it!!!!  They can delete it.  But I ain't spending hours hunting photos no more, unless it is for use as an external image.  This is BS! Wilson. Just pure BS! All over a lousy super poor quality photo that some poor US Army draftee assigned to the US Army PAO at Ft Benning, GA, who didn't care and just wanted out, took a photo of.  And I checked the Red Stone Arsenal archives.  This is the only Viper photo that the US Army has on its official Redstone Arsenal achives.  Note the one one on the Viper article that I posted to WP Commons as a US government photo.  The exact same soldier in the two "US Army" photos.  --Jackehammond (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It can get tiresome when those things happen. I've considered doing sketches before so that a particular image could be used (see Antoine Béthouart for an example of a user-created image).  Wikipedia has a group who specialize in policing.  Sometimes their work is useful and other times they are overbearing on stupid issues.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson They took off the delete flag. It took a long message, etc to explain to them, that when I wrote articles, that there was no internet, and what existed in cyperspace was ASCII (letters and numbers) only and that Compuserve was still a long way off with its GIF format for photos.  And that the Defense Department sent black and whites usually (they were cheaper) sometimes colored prints and miracles of miracles, color slides.  Luckily I found the one photo they had of the Viper on the Red Stone Arsenal archive.  It showed the Viper collapsed (look on the Viper article for it).  And the same soldier in that photo is the same soldier in the photo I scanned and posted as being taken by the US Army.  I wonder what would have happened if it had been another soldier in the photo.  --Jackehammond (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The AT4 is a grammar and logic mess
Folks, I have been adding some reference and correcting some big errors, but the grammar and syntax of the first three paragraphs I think is probably beyond my crude editing skills. I am going to try, but when they come for me with the hatchets, I demand a safe haven and asylum.  --Jackehammond (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did some copyediting. I am unable to find out much about the projectile itself, at least for now.  The description on the manufacturer's page sounds like it has behind-armor thermobaric effects and I put a footnote to that effect in the article.  Jack, you may wish to check that for sanity.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WilsonDid a great job! But it is not a thermobaric warhead. Those penetrate then explode causing the effect.  The "behind the armor" effect is caused by the HEAT liner.  The AT4 HEAT warhead has a cone which looks like the end of the trumpet.  Reports are it is made with aluminum, some say an alloy of copper and aluminum and others a copper liner with a thin liner of aluminum.  It is one of those items, where facts and half-truths and myths exist.  Again, thanks for the help.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RBS 70
Jack, I'm curious about something you said years ago on Key Publishing's website, who and where did IRAN got their RBS 70s from, I wonder (is it a coincidence that Pakistan has RBS 70 and a sizable Shia Muslim population too?)... because I'm sure as hell that Singapore most certainly did not pass or sold any of these babies to them. It is the same as the case of the retired Bristol Bloodhound missile from the Republic of Singapore Air Force, which was "reportedly" sold or pass on to Burma/Myanmar by a certain shadow-chasing Jane's "defence analyst". Anyway, would you care to help out on the article page of RBS 70? Because I'm about to remove the Iranian entry in the user list if nothing concrete comes up. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave All reports back at the time of the Iraq-Iran War stated it was Singapore. Why I have not an idea. Most accepted it after the break up of Yugoslavia when Slovenia militia (ie Slovenia was not a recognize state at that time which could issue end of users certificates weapon purchases) destroyed a number of Yugoslavian (Serbian) tanks wit ARMBRUSTERs. MBB and the Belgiums gave full accounting of their production lots, so about everyone pointed fingers at Singapore. That was when the rumor about the RBS-70s took flight. Until then, some thought it was an illegal sale to Pakistan who transferred them to Iran in exchange for cheap oil. All defence publications still list Iran as having RBS-70s (ie I don't know if they have reversed engineered the RBS-70s as they did the HAWKs) and MilitaryPhotos.Net has shown them in parades in Iran. And a official for BAC on the RAPIER told me also that Singapore was suspected -- ie Iran had moved almost heaven and hell to obtain Rapier reloads from other nations that had the RAPIER for their batteries defending the tanker station at Karg Island -- and BAC helped the UK government block those illegal sales -- and they have reversed engineered the RAPIER missile. Here is a page from THE WORLD DEFENCE ALMANAC 2005 which most defense attaches at embassies use as their bible (ie it cost $80 dollars for this one book per year!). It has been listing Iran with the RBS-70 since the 1980s. Also, I can help a lot with that RBS-70 article (at least up till about 1995) but I would like to add an ex. link to my photos and article at ArmyReconn. I know you have a biases against that site believing it is not serious. But do you really think they would send someone all the way from Belgium to China for a database like the one on the new Chinese internal security vehicle including the Chinese giving them an exclusive video for them to post on YouTube for their article/database? Or that Panhard or Boeing would place ads with them if it was not a serious endeavor? Finally, if you wish to delete IRAN as not a user, it is ok with me. I have made it clear in the EXOCET debate with the Argies and other Latins (ie and one Moslem) that it is not the important, even if all reputable sources state other wise. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, Singapore never did admit nor deny to anything because we have better fish to fry! And if you google "Armbrust", "NJA" or "JNA", "Catholics" and "Germany", I'm pretty damn sure you'll find out what I meant by the aforesaid statement. Anyway, feel free to do what you can to help at RBS 70, I'm still sifting through my data and see what I can come up with. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, is your E-mail enabled on Wikipedia? Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave Yes.--Jackehammond (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got mail~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave I got the email. Agree. And glad to do you the small favor. Also, if you ever want a secure way to contact me, go to AVSIG.COM and join the forums. They have a guest feature (ie you do not access all the sections) which will give you the private message function. AVSIG is one of the oldest forums on cyperspace (before the internet with Compuserve which was a professional business and investment establishment that expanded and use to be #1). They still go by the old rules that prevent totally the problems WP has with 16 year olds. You have to register with your "real" first and last name and address, etc. and to get to the forums where passions can get out of control, you have to pay $25 dollars a year, which gives them more information on members. People have a tendency to behave under those conditions. I was an AstSysop for Compuserve from 1987 to 2003. It only took one notification usually an people common down. Believe it or not, I can count on one hand the number of people I had to lock out. If you get a chance just check out the messages at the AVSIG AVIATION HISTORY FORUM to see what I mean. You can read them without joining. Also, check the JAVELIN section on this talk page. I have a question for Wilson, others and yourself about WP articles of which is favored. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Panhard M-3 article -- undoing a re-direct
Folks In the Panhard VCR article the earlier Panhard M-3 is mentions (the VCR is basically a super M-3). I checked and that vehicle is redirected to the Panhard AML page. While they are basic in their drive components they are different vehicles (they are listed in all reference books as different vehicle) with totally different combat missions. Like the Panhard VCR and Panhard ERC 90 Sagaie use the same auto components you would not put them in the same article. I am going to do an article on the Panhard M-3. How do you get a re-direct undone????--Jackehammond (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, when you have the article done in the sandbox, copy all of it and go to the M-3 redirect page, copy the article content over the redirect statement and it should be done. Another way is to make a new page with the title "M3 Panhard" with your content, then go the redirect page and point the redirect to your new page.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

JAVELIN antitank missile - WP.En version vs the WP.de version
Folks, I checked the difference between the English WP article on the Javelin and the German WP article on the Javelin. The difference between the two is like night and day. The German version, even translated to English is a lot, lot better. For one the WP.En article is a lot of opinion, and low on references. And on the WP.En Javelin|talk page there has been various complaints about how hard it is to read and understand. So how is this to be handled? If it is the unofficial WP community policy not to hurt the pride of previous editors, then it is obvious, just let it stay the way it is. If it is not, then there are two solution. 1> Just take the WP.de article translated over and work it up around some of the translated rough spots like Dave and I did on the EADS CASA article and replace the original article, like Wilson and I did on the HOT article. 2> The worst solution is to take the WP.En Javelin article "as is" and work with that article on the edits and information as though the WP.de article did not even exist. One reason is that the WP.de article has a references for every statement made and about three times the graphics, photos, etc. and is in much, MUCH better logical order. Suggestions?--Jackehammond (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The end goal is quality. Nothing wrong with translating the German article and using that.  Wikipedia has a template for that:

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Sorry, but I do not understand. Do I bring the German article over and replace the one their now, or do I have a secondary article with the template? I will be honest, these templates are confusing. I had a heck of time with the first archive. --Jackehammond (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, the template shown goes at the bottom of the article on the edit page. Bring the German article over, translate it, and then place the template at the bottom with the correct article name and date translated.  You can see an example of the template at the bottom of the Bienwald article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Dave, Etc One last question and I will leave you all alone for a day maybe.  What is more important to WP: Quality or Quantity of article. As you notice I get started on an article and keep returning to it, fiddling with it and fine tuning it more.  Is that important or is more important to try and post more articles? Also, Wilson thanks for introducing me to that ordnance disposal webpage.  Without that site, we could not do the Miniman justice.  With it I can give a good description -- ie the Miniman uses a neat launch trick the Germans invented at the end of WW2 called "high-low pressure launch system" (ie Dave the Singapore CIS 40mm machine gun grenade launching system uses it) to enable it to be recoiless and use a dirty cheap thin fiberglass launch tube.  One image from that webpage shows it perfectly. Also, there is no article explaining the high-low system.  Can either of you find me a WP commons or some kind of cut away drawing of the US developed 40mm grenades used on the M79 and M203 grenade launchers?  It is the most widely used example of the high-low system today --Jackehammond (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, not sure what the official policy is, but my guess is that quality tops quantity. Here is a cut-away of the 40mm HE grenade, but it is not Wiki Commons. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I use to have a Marine Manual (what they gave recruits in the 1960s) that had that exact drawing. But I loaned it out, as with most loaned books, it never found its way back. I am going to check some more. I need a drawing I can post not as an ex. image. I am going to do some more hunting. I wonder what the title should be? Low-High System or Low-High Launch System? --Jackehammond (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This will probably suit your purposes. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson After two hours of hunting Google images, I decided to check my box full of old US Army manuals. I came across FM23-31 40mm Grenade Launcher M79 printed April 1965. It was the first manual printed. And it is no longer in the US Army superseded by about a dozen manual. Here is two pages: First page a cutaway of the 40mm grenade, and the very important second page that explain in detail how it works. The US Army in 1965 named it the "High-Low Propulsion System". Do you think that will be a good enough title, when we link it to weapons like the US Army/Marines M203 grenade launcher and the Miniman that need explanation of how it works? I think with that more modern drawing you found, it will be a good article. Now if I can get WP Commons to understand that a manual printed in 1965 is public property. Wish me luck. And thanks for the other image. --Jackehammond (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, "high-low propulsion system" sounds a bit too much like jargon for my liking but it is your call. I'd also suggest the article title include the word "projectile" to narrow the title's scope a bit; maybe "Low (or variable) pressure projectile launch (or firing) system"?  It seems like an unwieldy concept to put into words. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think vandalism on Hand grenade
Folks, A recent edit at Hand grenade I am pretty sure is vandalism. I would say he is about 14 to 16 years of age and his allowance had run out early. How do you handle such situations? --Jackehammond (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, call for me! I handle vandals with a glove... *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (PS: I've reverted the crude kaboom thingie from these bored schoolkids, as usual.)

MILAN article and 1986 photo I took of MILAN II and uploaded to WP Commons Public Domain
Folks, I just happened to luck across one of my old slide sheets with a photo I took in 1986 at AUSA 1986 of the new MILAN II. I have uploaded it to WP Commons at and also I added it to the MILAN article. Could you all check out both and see if I got it right. Since I released it to Public Domain, I took the photo, and never used it in an article I think there should be no objections. Also, I was free lance and not paid to take the photos. Anyway, I probably screwed up some how or another and MilborneOne is going to be in a rage over some copyright violation (ie that seems to be his #1 joy, finding some reason any photo uploaded is a copyright violations), but at least I tried an upload one of my own photos, which two weeks ago I had sworn off as one big pain in the a**. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, Now on, if I swear off something on WP, I am sticking to it!!! Check the last message on the VIPER NEED DESCRIPTION section to find out why. See what pure BS! is. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish rocket artillery
Talk about stumbling across some unknowns -- Spanish multiple rocket launchers in 216mm, 300mm, and 381mm caliber, from the 1950s - 1960s from what I can see. JAA reported them still in service in 1984. Rockets were called D3, E2B, E3, and G3. Launchers were designated L-10, L-21, and L-8, depending on how many tubes they had. Truck mounted gear, can't find any internet sources on them. Apparently, Spain also has a more modern system called the Teruel (Teruel MRL). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson My apologizes for getting distracted. The weather here is just terrible. Lot of snow to dig. I have only two sources. First is page 157 and page 158 from C.F. Foss's ARTILLERY OF THE WORLD printed 1974 by Charles Scribner's Sons and page 439 from Jane's Weapon Systems 1976. Hope this will help. As Jane's stated, it is strange that the Spanish manufactured such large calibers in rockets. They look very similar to a Russian spin stabilized artillery rocket that Israel copied after capturing large numbers in the 1967 War. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, thanks for the information. Who knows, might end up on a Wikipedia article page... Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"high-low system" or would you rather have the Hoch-und-Niederdruck System?
Wilson Most of my sources use the term like " ... the Miniman uses a high-low system to launch the projectile. The terms High-Low Propulsion System or High-Low Launch System are basically the proper nouns for this tyep of system.  So I am going to title it just high-low system and have redirects and references to what the manuals or the brochures call it in the various articles -- eg the M79 and M203 grenade launchers.  Of if you prefer we could title the article what the WW2 German's referred to their desperate invention as: Hoch-und-Niederdruck System?  --Jackehammond (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The German title does have the benefit of mentioning pressure. It basically is a launch system based on a pressure state change.  Maybe "High-low projectile launch system" would be a good compromise between Army jargon and a descriptive article title for an encyclopedia.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson Unless there is a serious objections, I am going to stick with "High-low propulsion system". It is the term my references use. I admit it is not the ideal, but it is what is in use on the manuals, references and defense brochures.  If anyone is trying to find the article from another reference, etc. at least they can find it. And I am going to have about four re-directs to the article.  Btw, you would not in a million years guess how the Russian version of the US 40mm weapon they came up with after Vietnam, the 30mm and 40mm high-low grenades works -- ie for one on assault rifles they are muzzle loaded and there is no cartridge case at all, just the projectile!!!!!  It is a system that the 1950 grandfather of the Henry and Winchester repeating rifles used.  Finally, I am going to do a sandboxes with the title I think is suitable.  That way, there is no hard commitment with an article title.  Maybe Dave, would like to kick in with his view on the subject.  I will drop him a line.--Jackehammond (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson Here is a link to the sandbox. I got the pages from Ian Hoggs "German Secret Weapons of the Second World War" that goes the most into the details on the principle, why it was developed and how.  Also one page from JIW 1976 that was about the first detailed description of the 40mm grenade system. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1967 and Israeli bombs
Jack, you might find this and this interesting. Also, this, this, this, and this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Fully aware of that famous drawing of the "Dribbler" bomb. Thanks for looking it up though. Interesting reading. I am surprised there is no reference to the other myth of that war -- ie the heat seeking AS30 air to ground missiles that the Israelis were suppose to have developed from the French AS30 radio control version. But unfortunately according to article by the Israeli DF/AF pilots and commanders in AIR ENTHUSIASTS they never existed. For one the Mirage III had to make a low-low-high attack profile and they would have been low on fuel. So they made do with a few 500lb semi-armor piercing bombs that they dive bombed the runway with (ie they could get away with that trick only once, because after that the Egyptian AA units were waiting and ready) and 30mm cannon fire. One Israeli commander even stated: Our big secret weapon was the DEFA cannons that we had the French install on the Mirage IIIs they ordered instead of rocket packs. The Israelis spent a lot of money for fuel for air to ground gunnery practice with the just delivered Mirage IIIs before the June 1967 War. Remember the 30mm HEI round of the French DEFA and UK Aden cannons fired a thin wall shell that was packed with a lot more HE than most 30mm rounds. There was even talk of dropping small containers filled with roofing nails on the runways! Anything to keep the runway unusable for six hours. Finally, you will note I did not remove any of what I disagree with. Until I come across that AE article. And then I will post the reference and let the other editors make the decision. Finally, the Durandal was retired from the USAF not because of its shelf life (ie that could have been taken care of easily and cheaply) but because the USAF considers those type of low level attacks just to dangerous and instead relies on high altitude drops by stealth aircraft or cruise missiles dropping smaller anti-runway munitions--Jackehammond (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heller
Jack, you ever hear of a Canadian antitank rocket launcher called the Heller? John Weeks, in Men against Tanks, states it was used from 1956 until 1967. I've also been able to find it was a 3.2" weapon and had an 80% hit chance at 450 meters thanks to a small coincidence rangefinder that had a nine-inch base. The internet has conflicting data on whether the weapon was widely adopted, although one Canadian vet claimed to have fired it twice while he was with Canadian Forces - Germany.  Thanks for any information.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)  WilsonI think they referring to the RL-83 Blindicide from Belgium.  Never heard of Canada having it though????--Jackehammond (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Weeks addresses the Blindicide in separate part of his book. I'm wondering how many of these were produced.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson A lot of them were produced. It was basically an improved US 3.5 inch Bazooka and was more accurate and easier to load (the two main complaints of the 3.5). Also, Belgium was not so picky about the human rights record, etc of its weapon customers. Israel bought some and tried to copy them without any success. In fact they proved dangerous on launch with the propulsion sometimes burning to fast causing an explosion. The long range version of the Blindicide was interesting. It had a small booster on the end (like some man-portable surface to air missiles today like the Stinger and RBS-70) that ejected it from the tube and after a safe cost the main motor ignited.--Jackehammond (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, two further rare birds, these ones French. A recoilless gun called the APX-80 of 80mm caliber, and a rocket launcher of 73mm called the Strim which dates from about 1950 and was replaced by the 89mm Strim? Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The French had a contest to replace the 3.5 inch Super Bazooka in the late 1960s. The French government told one private firm to do research on a rocket replacement and another firm to do one on a recoilless weapon with rocket assist. The ACL-APX was the one with rocket assist (a very unique method by the way that you will find dang interesting). The French Army placed both in production. But soon retired the ACL-APX 80mm for the STRIM 89mm because it had more penetration and a lot cheaper to manufacture. But the ACL-APX I remember from an article was extremely accurate at long range and was not effected by cross winds. The only info I have us from Jane's Infantry Weapons 1976 page 576 and page 577. The strange thing is that with infantry having to worry less and less about warfare involving main battle tanks, the ACL-APX would be a great weapon for French units in Afghanistan. Last, the sight that the firm APX developed was adopted also for the STRIM 89mm. Hope this helps. I have to go and try and make sense out of article I am running up on beyond-armour effect that links to the AT4 article. I got carried away and got to cut it some. At least I am to the last part. And all that requires and is putting in what the manufacture claims.--Jackehammond (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, great information, thanks a lot. This may be the French 80mm recoilless I asked you about before.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Found more on the Heller, from the Ottawa Citzen, 16 April 1955: "A new infantry tank-killing developed by Canadian military men was tried out near Ottawa this week. With a muzzle velocity of 710 feet per second, the Heller anti-tank weapon weighs 32 pounds, measures 54 inches long and can be carried and fired by one man from any position. It fires a rocket-type projectile with amazing accuracy. Newsmen who watched the trials were allowed to fire the new weapon and scored hits with their first shots at ranges up to 300 yards. In the trials it burned holes in three-inch thick steel plate and while most details are still secret, military officials intimated the weapon's performance far exceeded what was seen during the tests." Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also this comment, from the internet - "The Heller never came into service.  It was trialed and fired a lot so there was a lot of exposure to it, and it seemed to be a fair weapon.   However it gave no real advantages over the 3.5" Super Bazooka that was also in service and used by our allies.   That I believe is the main reason it was never adopted.   The 3.5" was eventually replaced by the Carl G which has no relationship to the Heller.   I may be able to dig up a picture of one I had the privilage of blowing up." -- contradicts Weeks' assertion that the weapon was in service in the 1950s-60s.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson burn holes Jeez! I would love to have dollar for every time that term is used to describe how a HEAT warhead penetrates (WRONG!) in books, articles and even military manuals.--Jackehammond (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on bazooka use
Found this in Weeks' book. 3.5" bazookas were lashed into groups of four and fired simultaneously in attacks against Chinese trenches late in the Korean War. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I had seen that photo. Marines with plenty of 3.5 inch ammunition and time on their hands.  --Jackehammond (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks for the hard work on the Viper article. Makes a lot more sense now. Again thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Behind armor effect
Jack, one thing you may wish to mention in the article was the original "behind armor effect" of the German APHE rounds that first penetrated and then detonated a small HE charge inside the targeted vehicle. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson There are a lot of AP shells that have that. Even naval shells. The not so successful US Army 3 inch antitank gun of WW2 had that feature, and it caused problems because it exploded on impact causing the AP part not to penetrate. But this was never called "beyond-armour effect" etc. That term is a link to the AT4 article about a unique feature that Swedes developed for their HEAT round. Most HEAT rounds rely on spalling (ie solid antitank AP rounds have this main kill mechanism also) after the partial stream penetrates, but the has proven from past conflicts to not be enough do to the fact the particle stream is sometimes only the size of pencil lead on the inside of the penetration hole. I haven't added the description yet, but I think you will understand then. Yes, you could also say "behind-armor effect" also for APHEI or Semi-APHEI (the most common using a tail HE charge after penetration due to their smaller projectilesize) rounds, but I have never come across that term being used yet.--Jackehammond (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thought about it and you are most likely right. I think the Swedes copyrighted the term "Beyond-armour effect" so not to be confused with behind-armour effect or behind-armor effect of medium and high velocity cannon projectiles. To prevent confusion later, I think I will put mention in the article that it is not the same as "behind armour effect" (ie this business of the European-English vs American-English spelling of defence/defense and armour/armor causes no end of problems in WP defense and weapon's articles) which applies to APHEI, SAPHEI and APHE shells. There will be a note in references and notes explaining it more. On the AT4 article I changed the term and spelling four times -- ie due to various articles and reference books -- before I dragged out the FFV AT4 brochures and got the the right term and spelling they used for the special effect of the AT4 HEAT shells: Beyond-armour effect   --Jackehammond (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Check it out Beyond-armour effect and get your sharp keyboard out <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks. I did not know you could put a link in a note or reference. Again, thanks for the clean up. --Jackehammond (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, poor article
Multiple rocket launcher - very small, could use some work. I'll probably put the information about the Spanish launchers here. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Be glad to. Have to beef it up with more information on the Russian and German WW2 launchers and the US MLRS system. Those are the three that made big history --Jackehammond (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, I suggest we work something in a sandbox first. I looked at the article history and it has had a lot of minor editing on a small piece of text -- a sure sign that the article is a hot button for some editors.  When we update the article, it needs to be top-flight to keep the nonsense to a minimum.   Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Got blindside over on Dave's talk page by someone for Gawd who knows what reason. I still can't figure out what got that person up on the wrong side of the monitor that he came after me??????--Jackehammond (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the internet. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, if you would like to see instances where Wikipedia really gets stupid, check out the section "Requested Move" in Talk:Kraków. I am so sick of these linguistic agendas I could throw up. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Are they serious? Or are they just seeing if they can pull a college prank? All this over the letters "C" and "K"! Sounds like that debate they are having today in Malaysia about the word "Allah". Btw, I am going to work on the High-Low sandbox and get that one out of the way fast. Then I think I will see the RBS-70 article Dave wants me to look at. Last, guess who wrote the first USA non-military in house publication article on the MLRS? Hint: You get three guesses, and the first two counts don't count. I wonder if I could use my own article as references? <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Found very rare photo of the prototype for the LAW but can't place it right
Folks, on the M72 LAW article I was going through my pile of US Navy and US Army photos and came across a 1961 photo of the Marines trying out the prototype launcher for the LAW, where the front plastic cover swung up to become the front sight. This idea was reject. But it is a very rare photo showing how this important weapon evolved. Now the problem: I just can't seem to be able to place that photo in the right place. I have tried putting it under the statistic box. Even on the left side next to the first paragraph. I have it now right below the statistic box. But it still does not look right. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)