User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 1

SNEB
Hi Jack, could you take a look at this article → SNEB and see what you can do to improve it, take all the time you want, you can take the article apart and rewrite it as accurately as you can, I trust that you are familiar with this article of MATRA 68mm rocket projectile, so take it as a chance to practice. Don't worry about messing it up, we can always restore it even if you make a mess of it. I'll help you along wherever I can, yeah? Cheers~! --Dave 1185 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, this is a rough one which is a BIG swamp. SNEB is basically the full name for the company BRANDT.  They make iron rockets, bombs (no guidance), mortars, artillery, etc.  MATRA makes pods, a lot of guided weapons, bombs, etc.  BRANDT also made/makes aircraft rockets from the tiny 37mm to the 100mm rocket projectile.   Now the problem.  After the fall of the USSR their was a major shake up of defense manufactures in the West.  Many combined into one firm and some were bought by other aerospace/defense firms.   It is hard even for many in the know to keep track of all the changes.   And about 2001 I stopped obtaining detailed information, as the price of "good" defense publications went through the ceiling and I was no longer doing free-lance nor staff work.  And I had stopped attending any defense conventions way back in 1993.  To wit, when it comes to modern weapons, I am in pretty good shape on detailed knowledge till 1995.   Then I am ok, till 2000.  After that I have just a general knowledge.  But the author is right.  The term "SNEB rockets" -- while not technically correct -- is a generalized term used world wide for their 68mm rockets and the MATRA pod.  Sort of like "Xerox copy" is used today.  Jackehammond (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DAVE and others, I have a 1965 volume of Royal Air Force Flight. It has a large on page ad in it on the SNEB rockets and pods.  Since it is way before 1977 is it public domain now, or not.  Also RAF Flight is now defunct. --Jackehammond (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Read this: Copyright law of the United Kingdom. Cheers~! --Dave 1185 17:03, 6 December 2009
 * Dave, well the way ole Jack reads it "Fair Dealing" and that means I can scan that mid 1960s article and we can post it. Wikipedia is a database and Wikipedia or myself is not looking to make money and the use of the image will not deprive anyone of any money or future money.  But I have a feeling I am wrong on this one.  But honestly, I give the chances of anyone kicking about that old ad on Matra pods and SNEB rockets as less than 0.0000000001%. --Jackehammond (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

.

re-edited ERYX article - Hope for the best!
Jonathan and Dave, I just finished re-editing the whole ERYX article, correcting many errors that have become "facts" because they have been repeated so much by sources that should no better. I have gotten links to the sources and also, figured out how to link to other articles in WP. And if there is any challenging of my sources, please don' hesitate to ask me to post a scan of the magazine cover and the article. I will totally understand if asked. Also, how come my link won't go to the ERYX. That is the title of the article. Oops has to be all caps. Again, sorry. Also, I think you will learn why I had to hire a local newspaper reporter to edit my articles. I had the best portable small suit case computer you could have: A Kaypro 10 with 68k memory and a whole 10 megs hard drive. Paid $3500 for it in 1985.  Jackehammond (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack. I took the liberty of making a few minor edits to the ERYX article (mostly just grammar, readability touch ups and reference - also a minor note on spelling - British/Commonwealth spelling is acceptable as long as the article uses consistent spelling rules throughout :) ).  The only major change I made was to the last sentence of the description section - I may have misinterpreted what you were saying there, though, so you may want to take a look and fix it if I was off base.  Also - do you have any of the publisher details for the Combat Weapons article you cited?  Publisher's name, ISSN etc.  And this is a bit of a long shot, but do you have any information about the Serbian Eryx clone?  The Bumbar article is a stub, and the only reliable information comes from an incomplete Jane's article preview.  - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, First thanks for taking care of my poor skills in grammar. I know this will surprise you, but it use to be FAR worst in the 1980s.  Sorry, but the first I knew of the BUMBAR was when I saw a link to it in the ERYX article.  I can obtain information probably from the internet and others I know, but since I no longer go to arms conventions or take trade publications I can't have a quote source.  As COMBAT weapons, I can't find a ISBN.  But the publishers name and address is OMEGA GROUP, LTD, 5735 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, CO 80303. But the publication is now defunct like a lot of other defense publications that died with the fall of the USSR and the internet --Jackehammond (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Jonathan, does it bother you if in the future if I contact you about large re-edits I make to articles to check my grammar, etc. If your time is to valuable I totally understand. --Jackehammond (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the publisher info, that's enough to find what I need. And I don't mind helping with editing, but I'm probably not the best person to ask. :)  I can catch the obvious mistakes, but... -Jonathon A H (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathon, JEEZ! You have been one "busy beaver" on the ERYX article. Not only grammar corrections and editing but adding new information.  How did you find the article on the dispute between the Turkish and French government over the Armenian dispute?  Also, I was totally unaware of the new night sight.  Before, all I had heard of was a low light TV type night sight.  Thanks.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found out about the new sight when I was trying to confirm the citation for the 95% accuracy claim made by MBDA. The press release mentioning the tests for the new sight just happened to be at the top of the list on the MBDA website, so it was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. :)  As for the Turkish situation, I just used some old fashioned Google-fu to find the newspaper article (for a Turkish newspaper, it seemed fairly balanced). :) Edit to add: The official promotional material from MBDA mentions that there are currently 8 countries that have purchased the Eryx, and the article only mentions 6 (including Turkey... not sure if they count toward that total?).  Would you happen to know who else uses the Eryx?  There are apparently one or two customers in the middle east somewhere, but I've never seen the country specified with any reliability. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathon, the arms control database I mention below lists six users besides France. One is an unspecified member of the Gulf Cooperation Council.  The others line up with those specified in the article.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CASA
Jack, I've got another "proposal" for you, it's the article page of EADS CASA~! I must admit that I'm not acquainted with the Spanish language other than "puta" and "finito"... so if you can, would you take a look at it and see if you can improve/write more on the history part of the article page. Again, you can take your time, no hurry. Just remember to be accurate, thanks~! --Dave 1185 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave this is going to make you sick. I am on the list for "Planet AEROSPACE" since the 1980s.  It was (no longer published) the in house publication for AirBus, EADS, etc.  There was one issue dedicated to EADS.  Now comes the bad part.  I always saw them as just ad publications and if anyone wanted one or two issues, just gave the issue away.  And guess what? That issue is gone.  Looked and looked.  Found one interesting blurp though in the #2 2007 issue page 25.  On 30 January 2007 EADS CASA tested the Ar Refueling Boom System (ARBS) on a A310 MRTT tanker.  The first testing of a flying boom outside of a USA.  EADS developed the boom to try and break into the USAF tanker market, which has been in and out of the news in the fight between Boeing and Airbus.  CASA in Spain was responsible for developing a air to air flying boom compatible with US type combat aircraft that use that kind of system. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, I can now see the lesson you are trying to get me to understand by the indirect method with the CASA article. Basically, Yep, it does a lot for a person's ego to post a new article (ie like I was going to do with the Armbruster) or add a lot of new information (ie the ERYX) but the "grunt work" is the editing and re-editing of articles already posted.  Sort of like a piece of furniture that looks ok, but looks great after a bunch of coats of varnish has been applied with each coat sanded down and then applied again.  And you are right.  Google can do a lot in translation compared to the old days, but in the end it requires the human touch. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

.

.

Citing refs more than once
Jack, I've added the ref style to cite refs more than once to the F-94 article. It's pretty simple to do once one has been shown what it is. This is the coding to use:

Copy the coding from the main screen, not the edit screen. All you need to do is add a unique name for youe source to "shortname" (keep the quotes), and then insert your reference in the first one, where it says references. COpy the second one to every place you need to repeat the ref. As for namin gthe ref, generally we use the author's name if it's from a book, or the periodical name if it's from a magazine, newspaper, and so on. If you have more thn one book from the same author, add the year or part of the title to the ref's name. IE "Gunston 1985", "Gunston Aeroengines". If you have any other questions, just ask. You can see what I added to your refernces by checking the diff on the F-94 page, here. There is a lot to learn about editing on wP - I still don't know all of it, but I do know most of the basics. And I always appreciate someone who aslks for help first, rather than making 15-20 edits trying to get it right, and not having a clue! Had that happen just last week! Hope this hepls. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bilcat, first THANKS! But there is also someway that it is done with  which I have not figured out. You will notice it in the 2nd reference being used three times.  Jonathon helped out on that one.  When you did the revision, some how or another the fact that the F-94A and B models used 75% of the parts that the F-80 and T-33A employed -- ie made logistics really great for ground crews.  I did not return it as I always give anyone making a deletion or revision the benefit of their experience.  Also, there is a statement on the "Specification" section that citations are needed for them.  The RAF Flying Review reference I posted, gave those same specifications.  So I guess there is the citation needed.  Just curious.  When they started WP, did the founders say  "Hey! Let's have some fun, and make it as dang hard as possible for the volunteers in posting info."  --Jackehammond (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack. AMI is just the short name I chose for the Aviation and Marine International reference you posted (I tend to use initials for long publication names).  I popped in to post a talkback notice because I posted something similar (though a little more convoluted, unfortunately) on my talk page in response to your inquiry, and noticed that BilCat had beaten me to it. :) - Jonathon A H (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathon, Thanks for the fast reply. Also, the article states it needs a citation for the name "Starfire".  Page 69, 4th paragraph, of the AMI F-94 article states the USAF gave that name to the first production F-94As.  Also, that same paragraph stated the first USAF F-94A pilots called their aircraft "A T-33 with a TV and overdrive." Also, here is the F-94A cut-away illustration the USAF provided publications.  And this is the radar screen images the pilot and interceptor officer in the back had.  Again, USAF illustration provided in the 1950s and 1960s.  I have no doubt they are now Public Domain under Federal Law.  Sorry for the semi-sorry state of the scans.  But the publication is very OLD as I am becoming fast now.  --Jackehammond (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My grasp of copyright law, as usual, is tenuous - but my understanding is that material prepared by the US government (and, by extension, the military) is public domain. If the material supplied by the USAF wasn't prepared for the USAF by a third party, then it's in the public domain anyway.  Public domain resources.  Probably wise to get a second opinion on that, though. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1962 ad for MATRA/SNEB pods might be of interest
Dear Dave,

Below is a link to a 1962 ad in RAF FLYING REVIEW August 1962 page 58.

MATRA pods 1962

Jackehammond (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

80mm CSR
Hello Jack,

Curious to know if you've ever come across reference to a French 80mm recoilless rifle that might have existed during the 50's or 60's. The closest I've been able to figure is that the U.S. 75mm RR might have been referred to as "80mm" in French service. Thanks for any comments.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilson, The term 80mm was used so in logistic (ammo supply) the rounds for the 75mm US made recoiless rifle would not be mistaken for the 75mm rounds for tanks and the pack howitzer (ie the US Army SHERIDAN light tank had a 155mm cannon/missile launcher, but they referred to it in the 152mm caliber, and because of that it is accepted by almost all articles as being 152mm in caliber). The 75mm recoiless rifle was used extensively in the Algerian War of 1954-62. And while humorous the two photos show how French paratroopers used it on patrols in the country side. The 75mm recoiless cannon was dismounted though before use. Hope this helps. Btw, if the others click those two links I will bet they are spitting some liquid on the screen.  --Jackehammond (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the comments about simplifying logistics makes sense. Nice photos of the ACMA TAP.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

MGM-51 Shillelagh
Hello Jack,

Wondering if you have any penetration data for the MGM-51 Shillelagh article (it may still be classified). Considering the era in which it was developed and the performance of HEAT warheads of that time, my guess is that its penetration of RHA was something like 45 to 60cm for a hit with no obliquity. I have seen a figure of 75cm, but don't know what, if any, reference the author used to obtain that figure. Thank you for any comments.

Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Looked in everything. Nothing is stated officially about penetration.  Only thing stated officially is that it can defeat any main battle tank in various publications.  And when they were having the big "T-72 with reactive armor boxes" scare in the early 1980s, some US general in NATO stated to the editors of AFJI that the only antitank weapons that could defeat the T-72 fitted with reactive armor boxes was the HOT, Hellfire and Shillelagh.  And the Hellfire is not even a comparison because it has a two same size HEAT warheads (that is an engineering trick btw) one behind the other of approximately 7 inches in diameter.  But the HOT has a official penetration of 800mm.  If someone was to file a FOI Act request, I would bet it is around that figure.  But nothing official in any good or horrible publication you can use in any citations.   The HOT's HEAT cone is 136mm (ie they are never the diameter of the missile) which would be about the diameter of the Shillelagh's HEAT cone.  And according to a special issue of Vol. 15 published in 1982 titled "Anti-tank" weapons, in a test, a helicopter fired HOT missile which penetrated ten plates of solid armored steel of 100mm thickness each.  But the manufacture is not being totally honest.  Being able to penetrate ten separate plates of steel stacked one behind the other, does not equal being able to penetrate 1000mm of solid armored steel.  In before WW1 it was the rave to have laminated armor for warships. Then came actual WW1. Then it was "Sh*t! The engineers said...." --Jackehammond (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS> Jonathon has proven to me how brave he is. He is actually getting involved in the editing of that "Mexican Army" article.  More guts than ole Jack has. I'd rather discuss who won recent Balkan Wars!  Jackehammond (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, thank you for the comments, nice to know it wasn't just incompetence on my part in not being able to find a well sourced quote on the MGM-51's penetration capability. Sounds like the 75cm quote might be in the ballpark.  The quote is shown at Mod Armor, a site that can be found by Google but would not come up when I clicked on the link today (the cache comes up, though).  Re: editing certain articles, yeah, there are plenty of minefields in Wikipedia.  I swore off one class of them after I tired of the nationals of various countries insisting on starting edit wars with the object of using Wikipedia as a springboard for nationalist propaganda.  Tiresome activity.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

.

World Defense Almanac
Hi Jack. Just noticed your post over on the Mexican Army page. I don't suppose you have any similar and relatively up to date information on El Salvador? Someone had a bit of fun building their fantasy Salvadoran army on the page (legions of Leopard 2s, T-72s, Marders etc etc.) Click here if you want to see - many, many further fixes followed. I've done as best I could to tidy it up, but trying to find anything up to date on El Salvador is difficult. The only really reliable sources I've found were from the Country Studies section on the Library of Congress website (but that information is now over 20 years old), and from a few Jane's extracts on the web. I know El Salvador hasn't really purchased anything new, but I'm wondering if there've been any equipment changes in the last 20 years. Also I haven't touched the small arms section because I can't find any sources. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonothan, See this page from THE WORLD DEFENCE ALMANAC 2005 Vol 1 ISSN 0722-3226 page 60. The EL armored vehicle you see in the page is "home grown" based on a heavy civilian truck design.  Sort of like those armored vehicles that Israel made at the start of the 1947-49 War.  As to small arms, TWDA doesn't list that, and making heads or tails of what South American nation's small arms are today is a b*tch.  They buy from anyone and everyone and even design make some of their own.  I saw some photos of the Brazilian Army in Rio and one soldier was carrying an ancient Madsen top feed light machine gun, which was being built when the Wright Brothers first flew!!!  About your only hope, is to find someone who actually lives in EL and is familiar or someone in the military or defense industry that has an update copy of a JANE'S INFANTRY WEAPONS.  It use to list countries, but I don't know now.  I just know it is one expensive publication.  More than their JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS.


 * Finally, after you add the new entries on EL, let me know and I will go over and check it out. But for example "RCL" stands for "recoiless launchers" -- ie recoiless rifles in this case shoulder fired infantry weapon.  The AML armored car is made in France by Panhard.  WP entries for both. --Jackehammond (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Jonothan and Dave - DEFENCE is the correct spelling from the reference source. I know it is also "defense" on this side of the Atlantic, but pretty well the rest of the world says "defence." --Jackehammond (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Beauty. Many thanks. :) - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathon, I am looking at the El Sav WP article and it stated that one of the weapons was the Madsen light machine gun, the oldest light machine gun in the world! I don't know if that is true or not, but the Danes sold them to about everyone in South America from early 1900s to just before WW2.  It would not surprise me.  But what really impressed me was the link to a WP article on the Madsen.  I don't know who or how many, but it is a first rate article.  I mean "IMPRESSED".  Also, I am going to delete the obvious weapons that the EL Sav Army does not have, like the MILAN and the M198.  Those are items that are big $$$$$$$. PS> Looked over the small arms of El Sav.  they all look kosher. --Jackehammond (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonathan. Back.  See you already pulled up many of the weeds.  Also, you did a great job on pruning the first paragraphs on the El Sav Army which was basically a propaganda writing.  Good work. --Jackehammond (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the MILAN and Panzerfaust 3. I thought they were out of place, but didn't have enough information to remove them definitively.  I was going to ask you about them anyway given your background knowledge with the MILAN. :) - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, FWIW, Jane's World Armies 2008 does not list the Madsen or the M1919A4 as being with the Salvadoran Army. Strangely, JWA shows the M16A2 as the LMG for ES Army which doesn't make sense as the M16A2 to my knowledge can only fire 3-round bursts rather than full automatic.  JWA also claims the M203 is used as well as the M79 grenade launcher, as well as the Hawk MM-1.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to know. The Madsen source dates to 2001, so anything more recent is welcome. I'll go ahead and remove it shortly unless some new information comes to light - Jonathon A H (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson and Jonothan. We have been on a wild goose chase for the wrong Madsen.  It seems that it is not the Madsen light machine gun, but the Madsen submachine gun  was bought by a lot of South American nations.  It was manufactured in both the 9mm and .45 caliber  In fact Brazil got a license and manufactured it the .45 caliber and sold it to everyone and his mother in Latin America.  I have found some photos showing it with early El Salvador forces.  My bet is that it is with the police or para-military forces now.  But I can find no recent so I would remove it.  Also, yes the M16A2 only allows for 3 round burst.  But gun repair smiths can easily change that to full auto.  My bet is that they use older M16s that had only semi-auto and full-auto for the squads light machine gun.  Maybe even acquiring older barrels as some in Asia have done.  Ok, at last. WP has an entry for the Madsen M-50 submachine gun -- ie a version of the original Model 46. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how accurate this resource is, but if it can be believed, the primary arms exporters to El Salvador from 1988 to 2008 were Chile, Germany, USA, and Israel. The Germans did $3M (1990 dollars) of arms business with El Salvador in 1993. Another resource tells all, explaining this transaction was a sale of five Do-28D-2 Skyservant aircraft. These look like useful links. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second look, all the hits seem to relate to aircraft, at least for El Salvador. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, the DB also functions for land-based systems, I checked it against U.S. sales to Israel, here is some output:

6	M-270 MLRS 227mm	MRL	1994	1994	6	Deal incl 726 rockets and 720 training rockets (20)	TB-20 Trinidad	Light aircraft	(1994)	1996	(20)	Israeli designation Paskosh (250)	AGM-114K HELLFIRE	Anti-tank missile	1995	1998-1999	(250)	$45 m deal (16)	Bell-209/AH-1E	Combat helicopter	1995	1996-1997	(16)	Ex-US; aid; no. could be between 8 and 28 4	F-15E Strike Eagle	Fighter/bomber ac	1995	1999	4	$253 m deal; F-15I version; Israeli designation Ra'am 28	M-113	APC	1995	1995	28	Ex-US; M-577A2 CP version; aid (58)	M-270 MLRS 227mm	MRL	1995	1995-1999	(58)

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

.

ERYX manufactures provide new information and wants deletion to article
Dave, Jonothan, Wilson, etc. The press department of MBDA (ie the firm that is the main manufacture for the ERYX missile) contacted me and asked if I could make some changes. Most are ok, like date of manufacture and the fact that it did not originate in both Canada and France -- ie it is totally French designed. But they also requested that I take out the 72% accuracy statement by Turkey out. I replied that I could be as fair as possible, but that was what the reference stated, and that in fact before I did the re-edit, the article did not state the reason that MBDA gave for Turkey's cancellation which was political over the Armenian issue. But that if they provided a reference to a reliable source or article which stated the accuracy (claimed or otherwise) I would gladly include that. Did I handle this correctly? And can you state, information provided by manufacture as a reference? Also, so there is no misunderstanding, the email was totally polite and there were no threats, demands, etc. They just presented their views on the article. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you handled it well enough. The most important thing, I think, is to maintain balance - the site isn't here to advertise, after all. If something is factually inaccurate, then by all means, it should be fixed.  The article as written only states that the Turkish Army made those claims, not that there were, in fact, problems with the missile, and the political nature of the cancellation is discussed later on in the article. Both sides have to be presented, and right now that's all the explanation we have for the Turkish side of the dispute (It should be reworked, of course, it if better information comes to light).  If it can be proven that those claims were patently false, or were never made, then it should be removed. There was a statement on an older version of the article claiming a 95% accuracy rate, which was attributed to the MBDA website.  When I was cleaning up the reference (it was just attributed to "www.mbda.co.uk"), I couldn't find anything in the Eryx information on the site to back that claim, so I removed it (also how I came across the enhanced Eryx information).  I think that should be put back in if there's an MBDA source that it can actually be attributed to.  It could also be noted in the article that MBDA claims a 100% accuracy rate for the Enhanced Eryx.  As for the bits about Canada, I'm fine with removing those.  There are a few articles stating that components are built in Canada (see the Armada International reference on the site now, or Army-Technology.com's Eryx article - specifically the section on the thermal imager), but they seem relatively minor in the overall development of the system, and may be overstated. - Jonathon A H (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonothan, Thanks. When I do the re-edit I will let you know, so you can check it out and make sure it is kosher. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another way to approach it is to keep the 72% quote, but note that the manufacturer claims a higher accuracy rate. Frankly, I am skeptical of any success rates that get into the "nineties" and very much so for a 100% accuracy rate -- that is tantamount to claiming perfection.  On the issues with Turkey's reasons for dropping the system, MBDA may have some points to make.  These decisions are undertaken by the Turkish General Staff and they have been known to be arbitrary in determining what they need and for how long.  The TGS way of handling things keeps a given level of uncertainty in defense business deals there.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * * Finished the re-edit of the ERYXarticle. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonothan, got another email from MBDA, and I think someone told them that the WP article as "fair and balanced" (Gawd I hate using that term) and that MBDA was lucky we did the article as we could have done them a lot worst, and miracles of miracles they apologized for their attitude in previous emails, etc and basically thanked us for giving both sides of the story. I will tell you from my own experience in 1980 and the 1990s that this is very rare.  But in the old days, big defense firms could pressure the publications, etc in indirect ways. WP has the advantage that is is almost pressure-proof from a financial stand point. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can sympathize with the use of the term "fair and balanced". It doesn't seem to mean what it used to these days.  I'm glad to hear that they're okay with the situation now.  I didn't want to antagonize anyone, but I thought the Turkish situation was noteworthy, and I wanted to make sure that both sides were represented.  Thanks for your help here. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch out, Jack, next the letter from the Turkish General Staff will come  nice to hear MBDA was reasonable. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a modern historical reference - The Battle of Yarmouk
Folks, If a book is printed in 1963 that gives the first detailed and in depth look into one of the most over looked battles in history, is it still considered a modern work for researching and article. The reason, I am asking, is that there is a big push to have the Battle of Yarmouk to have a peer review so to get more attention. I agree. But in the article the authors (one especially for reasons I will keep to myself) are totally ignoring the first book in history exactly that explains in detail what happen before, during the battle and the results after. In fact the results of a lost at Yarmouk would have resulted in Islam being a religion of what is Saudi Arabia today. Can anyone reading this message go over there and do a quick glance at the article and the talk page. I may be totally wrong, but I think the authors are trying to railroad the peer review into a quick decision. --Jackehammond (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, given the date of the battle and the context in which the article contributors have defined "modern source", yes, a 1963 work is certainly valid. Given that the date of the work pre-dates western concern with Islamic terrorism, I would even say it could conceivably be freer of certain influences than works published after 2001.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Khalid was a great general on par with Napoleon and Jackson. There is no reason as the editors (most from Muslim nations) to add conjectures and even myths to the Battle of Yarmouk.  The fact that he left his lines at Yarmouk, did a force march and beat the Byzantine army north of Beersheeba and then counter marched back to Yarmouk and defeated the Byzantine forces there, before they could know he had left his lines, is honor enough.  It was an astonishing victory against forces far superior to his own, with better position and far better logistics.  But for what ever reason, they can not be satisfied with that.  Since the records of the battle of Yarmouk are vague, they have decided to "add" to the story.  "Gone With The Wind" style.  And this is a disgrace to his memory.  But I have a feeling that article will stand "as is" as they say in the used car business.  And it will receive a favorable peer review.  Even WP will have a hard time withstanding the forces of today's political correctness.  What upsets me is the hatchet job they are doing on the late General John Bagot Glubb.  In the 1947-49 War he was the only successful Arab force commander who came out of that war with his and his men's honor in tack.  And that just sticks in the throat of many in the Muslim military community.  Then on top of that he is the historian that wrote the best book on the first 60 years of the Arab-Muslim military campaigns and the rise of Islam in the Arabian peninsula .  So many have set out to basically destroy his reputation and his honorable service now that he has passed away -- ie with what seems to be the duty of every retired Pakistani general today. King Abdullah had warned him, that the Arab-Muslim world's greatest weakness was envy. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, their culture seems to thrive on fantasy and imagination, the problem is that those qualities don't pass muster in combat. Interesting tale you related above.  If you ever want to read puffed-up authors, check out Paki and Indian sources on their wars in the 20th century. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, I checked out another page on early Islamic military history by one of the persons involved from Pakistan Rashidun army. None of it jives with Glubb, and most of the quotes are given by the new breed of Muslim historical scholars.  For example, up until way after the Battle of  Yarmouk, the Arab-Muslim armies fought as tribes.  It was only under the Khalifate Muawiya did they start having regular full time units that were paid by the state.  And the article has a lot of references to conversions by Greeks and Coptics who fought for the Arab-Muslim armies.  All historians at that time indicate that they thought Islam was for Arabs and even those that converted were second class citizens, and they wanted no converts as warriors.  In fact that was the draw of the new Arab conquerors.  You paid a tax and you were exempt from military service. But not according to the authors of that article. And how do you challenge such articles, when they have reliable sources of books and articles written by retired Pakistani generals??? --Jackehammond (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can't challenge the source, then you add balance with reliable references of your own - make sure that both sides (or all sides) get told. Sorry to jump in here. - Jonathon A H (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I myself is a great fan khalid ibn walid, infact it was his personality that makes me to write the article on battle of yarmouk. My first article on wikipedia was Khalid ibn Walid. (going to work on it more so tht i could forward it to GA or FA class ). But as i said earlier i used other modern works only because they were available at my place, and Glubbs's book wasn't. Even i didnt heard about tht before u told me, i hope i could read it (if its so interesting tht u seems to have been pretty much impressed by it) but its not available in local libraries, although its on internet for purchase, but i dont think their service is available in pakistan.
 * Also i need to make articles balanced so they might not look like hero worship. If u think u can help in putting stuff regarding military prowess of Khalid, feel free to add tht.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Mohammad, Thanks for your kind and considerate reply. I really appreciate your commitment to an article that is based on facts and not one that is "hero worship".  Please find some information on the Battle of Yarmouk  on your talk page to help you in your research, especially General Glubb's 1963 book on the Arab-Moslem military campaigns of the first 60 years.  Again, my appreciate your willingness to explore all views and opinions on this subject. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with you with the first two battles, but didnt have read about Siege of Malta (1565) so cant comment on it. I see the battles in a bit different way, for example i consider Battle of Yarmouk and Battle of Qadisiyah as a battle for survival of the nascent Rashidun caliphate, if they had lost even one of them, the other one would have been lost with out a fight, and the history as we know it now, would have been so different. Then came the Battle of Nihawand, which is no doubt was a key to east. (as early historian named it)
 * Similarly Battle of Tours, (if it was really an attempt to capture france, many historian now regard it just a raid) was a great halt for the rapid conquest, it was for muslims, like Ain Jalut was for mongols. A key to India proved to be Battle of Panipat. and a key to Europe was Fall of constantinopole, although ottomans has already established their base in balkans but once their rear was clear of hostile force they were all free to campaign any where they wanted.

And then came Siege of Malta (1565), as you said a downfall begun. Probably it was Ain Jalut of Ottomans.


 * And yes thanks for those pages, i really appreciate that, i will take references and stuff from it to add to the article as soon as i get free.

Regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  08:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mohammad, Thanks for your detailed opinion on these important battles and historical events. About the Battle of Tours, I have not formed an opinion.  But you have to admit that took a lot of swallowing of national pride for the French historian to state that it was "just a raid."  And they do have a point: In that era, Western European armies were more a rabble than an army, and the Muslim armies were true armies.  If the Muslim world had been serious, the Muslims would have conquered Christian Europe in the 8th century.  For what ever reason they were not.  As to the Fall of Constantinople, I have to strongly disagree.  The Ottoman Turks already had control both of the land and sea approaches.  They had no problems moving their land armies from Asia to Europe and Europe to Asia.  Constantinople was more symbolic a threat than anything.  Sort of like Bataan, Philippines in 1942.  With the Roman Catholic Church pressuring the Greek Orthodox to submit to Religious authority from Rome, I feel that it was only time, before the Greek Orthodox people requested protection.  As on Greek Orthodox Bishop stated "Better the Muslim Crescent than the Latin Cross."  What was surprising about the last siege of Constantinople was how long it took to take the city.  The Byzantines and their Christian allies from Italy, were an extremely small force.  And the population was enraged by their Emperor submitting to Rome for a short period and refused to help man the walls, even though Genoa and Venice had brought arms and armor suits for them.  Last the Siege of Malta.  If you can ever find a copy of the book THE RELIGION, get it.  It is historical fiction, but it tells that story, from the defenders and the besiegers far better than any of the non-fiction books.  And if you are thinking "Yes, one of those books from Western culture, that makes the Christians look like the "cowboys" and the Muslims like the "Indians" in a John Wayne movie you are 100% mistaken.--Jackehammond (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In recognition of your service rendered
I hereby award you the following for your excellence in knowledge to provide references on topics of WP:MILITARY. Well done! (PS: Don't blink!) --Dave 1185 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * *Thanks Dave. It is an honor. Btw, I have been checking out some vandalism and debates over MilborneOne have to step in, and as someone said about some criminals "If they would work as hard at making an honest living as they do a dishonest living, they would be super rich."  The same about the WP vandals.  If they would work as hard at helping with articles as they do at wreaking articles, think of the good that could be done.  One the subject of WP policing.  I like the way it was when I was Sysop on Compuserve in the 1980s and 1900s: Jack was Gawd and there was no appeal! Those were the good ole days. 


 * PS> Check SNEB. I have added some notes.  My grammar might not be that great.  But the facts are.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice medal, Jack! I took a look at the SNEB article and while it is informative, I wonder if there is any information about when the rockets were introduced.  I'm guessing the French developed the first versions sometime between 1945 and 1950, but maybe later, this page mentions the early to mid-1950's.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, I also notice on the CASA discussion page you had a problem with someone claiming that the Spanish were also involved in the design of the Eurofighter/Typhoon. That person claiming that Spain was also involved in both design and manufacturing.  That is 100% untrue.  The Eurofighter began and a collaboration between UK's BAC and Germany's MBB design departments.  Spain was not brought on, till the design was set in stone and BAC had flown a concept aircraft.  If this dispute happens again, drop me a note, and I will find the "Air International" article on the subject. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that Spanish chap (, shortened to "B") claims to be an automotive engineer/mechanic/technician or something for twenty donkey years in Spain and boy does his command of English suck, literally. "B" made so much erroneous edits and fabricated claims (I must admit that most of which were in good faith) on that article page until Bill and I had to slow him down to get him to understand the editing guidelines of English Wikipedia (I checked, he ran amok on the Spanish Wikipedia and thinks that he could have his own way here on the English version!). Billcat and I recognise that this behaviour of "B" was no different from that of a newcomer and we gave "B" some room to digest the welcome template and other information place by me before him. Yet, "B" still didn't slow down and went on to get on both our nerves, even going as far as saying that we bully him because he is new. Which is totally ridiculous! And then I got MilborneOne to protect the article because "B" wouldn't stop his wilful edit warring on EADS CASA, guess what he did? "B" went back to Spanish Wikipedia and tried to get somebody (or anyone, for that matter) with a better understanding of English to come back to the article to set things right, because it was a matter of national pride. So now, do you see the kind of immature maniacs we are dealing here? On the other hand, if you were indeed the real Jack E Hammond, I reckoned that you would've discuss things with us like responsible and mature human beings. I wasn't proven wrong, thanks. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 14:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My impression is that because the English-language Wikipedia is the largest (and probably most consulted) Wikipedia, it attracts a lot of attention from the nationals of certain countries who insist upon slanting articles to meet the perceived needs of their country's self-image. This activity ranges from distortion of content to forcing the use of diacritics on words of foreign origin even when such usage is absent from the English language.  I frankly wish that the English-language Wikipedia would take a firmer stance on these issues and stop trying to be cooperative with individuals who attempt to dominate content with nationally-slanted attitudes.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, I have no clue as to the exact time the 37mm SNEB rocket was developed. I have never read about it being used in the French IndoChina War, but I did read an article some time where the 37mm was used by helicopters in the Algerian War 1954-62 and then switched to the newer 68mm rockets and then "switched back" to the older 37mmm rockets for both the fixed wing Texans and the Alouette helicopters because the shot gun effect was better -- ie this was before the days of the fletchette warheads.  And an interesting historical note: The last combat use of the 37mm rocket was in the Portuguese wars in their colonies in the 1960s and 1970s as a ground weapon.  The Portuguese developed a small like bazooka weapon that proved very effective firing the 37mm rocket.  It was a lot lighter and far more accurate at maximum range than the Korean War era 3.5 inch Super Bazooka or the older WW2 2.36 inch bazooka.  Sort of a mini-RPG type.  I would just like to know how the gunner kept from getting burned.  Also, that link you provided.  I thought about posting a comment, but decided not to, about the other-wing mounting of the Matra rocket/fuel pods on the British Lightning for the Saudis.  I thought that was just a concept drawings and was never fitted.  I was stunned to see the photo showing that type of mounting.  But I would like to know one thing: When the pod is fired how do you eject them when they are mounted over-wing. Does the pilot flip the aircraft on its back after firing the pods and eject the pods.  I mean there is such a thing as gravity?!?!?!???????? --Jackehammond (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, interesting bit about their use in the Algerian War and by the Portuguese -- I think this would be interesting to put in the SNEB article. What do you fellows think?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the topics of French and Portuguese use, this page and this page are nice write-ups. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * I reckoned what you're saying is in direct reference to those Matra JL-100 rocket launcher/drop tank pods? You'll be surprise that those babies can and could be ejected from those awkward overwing mounted pylons if need be, but they're usually brought back to the air base because they aren't exactly very cheap accessories. IIRC, the last aircraft to mount ordnance in such a way was during Gulf War I, when those SEPECAT Jaguars of the RAF were deployed with Sidewinder AAMS mounted overwing, they did brought along a few of those JL-100 pods there but were not needed in the end as there was enough air tanking asset, plus the shift to the usage of LGBs to minimise collateral damages. Hope this help give you a better picture, have a great weekend~! --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 08:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, thanks for the link. It even mentioned the ground use by the Portuguese in Africa.  As for including that information, we would run into a problem.  "SNEB rockets" are sort of a common  term for the 68mm rocket pods.  Like Xerox is used for copies.  I don't know if Dave, wants to expand it to the 37mm and 100mm.  That might be better for a totally different article?  And a trivia not connected to that article, but Spain designed a pod for the 37mm rockets that could hold "54" rockets (ie btw, the 1976 Jane's says they are designated "S-9 37mm".  And the worst part is, these pods and several others for both the French and US fold fin air to ground rockets were designed and built by CASA.  And the heading gave more info on CASA that was not known.  That means Jack his headed back to that CASA article, that Dave thought was wrapped up.--Jackehammond (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, the over-wing pylon for the French MAGIC (an update by the French firm Matra -- who make the pods for the 68mm SNEB -- of the older Sidewinder model) air to air missile, was developed by BAC to meet a "must have" requirement of Oman and I believe Ecuador. No mounting of a self defense air to air missile without taking the under wing pylons, no sale.  The RAF decided it was a good idea and adopted it also.  Finally, I know they say they won't, but I would bet good money that the RAF will regret retiring the Jaguars.


 * Trivia: A navalized version of the Jaguar was developed and tested for the French Navy. It was suppose to replace the Etenard, but the the French Navy instead developed the Super Etendard as a replacement.  French pilots were none to happy.  They wanted to replace the Etendards with a Super A-4 Skyhawk.  But the French jobs program won out. And this info came from a retired French Navy pilot. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * *Wilson/Dave, Btw, the over wing pylons were developed for the Lightning because of the crisis between the former SEA colonies of the UK and Indonesia. The UK government figured in a crisis they would have to ferry aircraft to Singapore.  But the problem was the Aden to Singapore leg.  India, Ceylon, Thailand, etc. refused landing and refueling rights.  So the Lightening would have to fly all the way from Aden, with a refueling out of Aden and a refueling with an aircraft meeting them coming to Singapore (ie an RN destroyer would be placed out in mid leg of the flight as a beacon and in case of ejection).  The Lightning was notorious for have limited range.  It did have a fixed belling fuel tank.  That was not enough.  So they came up with those pylons which could hold enormous (ie I mean BIG) fixed tanks that looked like the best aerodynamically designed drop tanks in history.  You have to see a Lightning fitted with those over wing ferry tanks to believe it.  The only reason they could design such a contraption, was because they Lightnings main landing gear folds outward so, the wing to mid point has to have great strength. --Jackehammond (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack, this is for your reference. I know the EE Lightning quite well, my late uncle used to service them when RAF was still stationed in Singapore, he used to tell me stories of how things were done back in the good ole days. But sadly, his vast collection of Flight magazine (oldest dating back to the 1960's) for me was lost when I move house last year. BTW, have you ever heard of RAF Gan and Handley Page Victor tankers? They used to deploy them whenever RAF conducted long range deployments to Singapore or British North Borneo. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * * Dave, that Spanish gentleman you had problems with, claims that while WP is allowing Spanish WP articles to be bought over to WP:EN and translated, that bring WP:EN articles over to WP:SP translated is not allowed. Is he just blowing smoke, or is their a WP reason for that? --Jackehammond (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows for translation back and forth. Translation for the English side of things, and es:Wikipedia:Taller_idiomático for the Spanish.  The only issue I see with the Spanish side of things (at least so far as the Google translation can tell me) is that the Spanish side doesn't do full articles, just bits and pieces as needed. (Google translation).  Once again, sorry to jump in. - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

and I have had enough with them, WP:MILITARY on English Wikipedia seems to attract all these nutcases from the Latin speaking world (mostly Italians and Spanish speaking editors). There has been many times when we tell them off because of their wondrous edits and they really take it personally. By my guess, these guys aren't anything more than those immature young punks who just got out of their teens and thought they are ready for the world. Clearly, the world is not ready for them. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you think you got problems with the Latins on English WP:MILITARY. Check out Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia and the dispute between the Sunnis and the Shias on history. Your problems are mild compared to this! <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My SCUD missile article - Or Electronic Piracy At its best
Folks,

I think you will find this of interest maybe. Back in 1990 shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait and war balloons were flying, journalists were worst than a chicken with its head cut off. They got almost anything and everything wrong. Then they started looking for how to get the correct information. Some did the smart thing and paid for the information from people who had -- eg Jane's. For option #2 there was no Wikipedia. Option #2 then was Compuserve's Military Forum (MILFORUM). It was made up mostly of retired and active military officers and those in the military history business -- eg a lot of history professors at military academies on both side of the Atlantic. You had to pay good money to belong to Compuserve so that kept out the "wrong element" as they say -- ie sorry Dave, those days are gone. <GRIN> Compuserve also had a forum which it seem everyone and his mother in the journalism business belonged to. That was Journalism Forum or JFORUM. CNN had a lot to do with JFORUM, till they split off with a Compuserve forum of their own, called CNNFORUM (ie then they left Compuserve when Compuserve got really greedy). Well, after August 1990, everyone on JFORUM with low budgets suddenly joined MILFORUM as Option #2. And as one of the AstSysop, I was the gate keeper, trying to explain many things, that takes some years for other to understand. You would not believe the gaffs, like why couldn't Bush order the 82nd Airborne dropped into Kuwait and drive the Iraqi Army out. And this was asked by a lot of reporters! Then came January 19991 when the SCUDs started falling. That was Info #1 suddenly. And the worst gaff was the presses refusal to accept that SCUD was not an abbreviation of something. Had a h*ll've time getting them to accept it was just the NATO code name for a Russian surface to surface ballistic missile and why all surface to surface missiles (ballistic to antitank) had a name that began with "S". Serious! They just could not accept that simple of a reason. Then came all the questions, after the first SCUD hit Israel. So ole Jack, got together a small text file of "SCUD 101" for the press. Took a long time to get to the point, but I just discovered that some webpage called TEXTFILES saved that file. I was surprised as all heck get out, when I got the email about it. So if any of you are interested in see how I can "bastardize" the English language, go to the A Short History and Description of the SCUD missile. I know you will find it hard to believe, but a lot of articles and news reports you heard, used that text file. And, to my surprise, some even gave me credit. Mainly small newspapers and radio stations. But since I robbed the big media outlets blind for my articles without giving credit, I really couldn't scream that I was a virgin in a certain type of house with a blinking red light out front, and it was not a house of worship either. Also, notice the many reference notes in the article. At that time I did not have WP staff to train the unwashed as today. <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of job I'd love to have -- mil consultant. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Uh, that was unpaid. My reward was an "Great Job" and the ultimate.  I could access Compuserve free of charge using their 1-800 number and any forum or database.  And the database for me was a gold mine.  I even had my own union get together financial info from various source that I got paid for.  But either way, I enjoyed it. Oh, btw, Jane's had started an online database and first used Compuserve to maintain it. At that time, internet access was limited to the a very small group (eg colleges, defense establishment, some big financial institutions, etc). And Did you notice the word "piracy" in the title of this article. <GRIN><GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

.

SNEB, again.
Gentlemen, in the SNEB article I added some reference notes pointing readers to other Wiki articles on the 57mm, 70mm, and 80mm rockets briefly mentioned in the main article. If this is not wanted for some reason, please redact as required. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, I hope it stays in. It is great cross references in articles.  It would be nice if the links to the SNEB article could be included in those three links.  I was very surprised to find detailed information on the Russian 57mm rocket.  Usually all you have is that one famous photo showing the pilots loading a HIND attack helicopter (the 57mm rocket is very small and can easily be handled with one hand) or the 57mm pods on Russian aircraft.  Btw, just trivia, but the Russian 57mm fold fin rocket was extremely inaccurate.  The reason for the R&D of the 80mm which was based on an old Swiss Oerlikon 80mm rocket no longer in production that was only used on Swiss AF aircraft.   Again, Wilson, thanks for the links.  I notice someone took my US, Italian and Russian designation after each caliber and replaced it with a general "international".  WP in action. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that Wikipedia had an umbrella article on the topic of folding fin aerial rockets, but I cannot locate one. Might not be a bad idea for an article to provide an overview of the various systems and a rough history of their development and features.  On the Russian 57mm rocket, those fins look odd, I'm not surprised the accuracy wasn't very good, but I guess all the FFAR's suffer from accuracy problems to some extent. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, the German's in WW2 designed the world's first successful fold fin air to air rocket, in the 55mm caliber the R4M (ie drawing shows launch lug, but it could be removed for tube launch from aircraft like the Me-163). Look up "NATTER" and you will see what it was designed for specifically, but the NATTER fell behind on operational date -- ie NEVER luckily for the pilots.  Also, you are correct about the accuracy.  Especially the earlier ones.  They used the "shot gun" effect.  That is why fixed fin rockets were kept around.  The Oerlikon 80mm SURA-D rocket with the fixed fins that slide down the body on launch and the 5 inch HVAR that the USN developed were extremely accurate.  But the Canadians with their Bristol Aerospace CRV7 R&D the most accurate free flight rocket air launched rocket to date, including those with fixed fins.  They looked at the problem.  First they increased the power of the rocket motor.  They they designed the fins so they "ALL" locked into place shortly after launch (ie unlike the USAAF WW2 4.2 inch air to ground rocket, where one fin would not fold out and the rocket would go Gawd knows where), use a spring load on each of the three wrap around fins, they copied from the US Army MLRS rocket) that were held in place by sheer pins.  And instead of relying on the fins to give rotation, they flutted the rocket motor nozzle.  The CRV7 has such a high muzzle velocity and accuracy, that you can use them in the anti-tank role, using the practice round with its steel warhead.  The USAF considered the CRV7 as the back up if the A-10 30mm can opener had not worked out. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Natter, this Wikipedia photo is one of mine. Thank you for the information on the various rockets.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, can you give me a hand at Talk:CRV7 about the CRV7 replacing the Mighty Mouse, which is not true. The pods under the Canadian CF-5As and CF-104s were for the longer model 2.75 inch rockets that replaced the Mighty Mouse.  The original 2.75 inch Might Mouse could be loaded one handed.  The later models required two hands and some muscle. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yow, what an undocumented mess. I would have thought what CRV7 might have replaced would have been the RP-3 (60-pounder) (see this page, but one web page mentions both 3-inch and 5-inch rockets being fired, presumably in the 1950's.  Would the 5-inchers have been Zunis?  Different beast than the 2.75-inch Mighty Mouse in any case.  This page mentions development of the CRV7 began in 1973, so it leads me to wonder what the RCAF was using in the 1960's, maybe they were still using 3- and 5-inch rockets.  Ah - this page mentions RCAF use of the Mighty Mouse as an air-to-air weapon.  So I'm not sure what the story is at this point, but perhaps this information helps.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also found this "By 1954, the MK4 varient came out, featuring improved gun laying radar and an improved Hughes MG2 fire control system. On this version, the wing tip fuel tanks could be replaced by a pod containing 29 2.75 inch unguided, folding fin rockets.....in addition to the regular gun pack." - referring to the CF-100, at this page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, at the moment, I'd guess the evolution of RCAF aircraft rockets was the RP-3, perhaps the 5-inch Zuni, the original Mighty Mouse, the "bigger motor Mighty Mouse", and finally the CRV7. But I have no documentation explicitly stating that.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, I placed a comment on the CRV7 talk page regarding the statement about the maximum effective range. The article seems to depend on a manufacturer's claim that doesn't line up with information in U.S. field manuals.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

. Wilson, a lot to chew here. The RP-3 60lb is a British air to ground rocket of WW2 origin. It is basically an earlier anti-air rocket adopted for firing from aircraft. After the Russians one of the first successful air to ground rockets developed. It is the rocket that made the RAF Typhoon famous at the Normandy break out. The rocket motor is 3 inch in diameter and the warhead is 6 inches in diameter. Took a lot of practice to learn how to hit near the target. Originally the 60lb was developed for anti-sub work, but it did not work very well in the role of a rocket depth charge. It was discovered that it made a good ground attack weapon, with the 60lb warhead able to blow the tracks of tanks and destroy light armored vehicles. For anti-sub work, Coastal Command found out that the solid steel 3 inch 25 lb AP warhead was best as a hole in a sub hull was a kill. So when the Canadians after WW2 acquired the Hawker Sea Fury, they also bought a stock of RP-3 rockets, which were employed in the Korean War. Now when the Canadian Navy acquired a few Banshees (ie he model in the all-weather/night) to protect their one anti-sub carrier from long range maritime bombers they also acquired from the US Navy stocks of 3 inch and 5 inch rockets. Both had fixed fins and were fired from zero-rails under the aircraft wings, and not pods. The 3 inch rocket was intended as a cheap training rocket, but it was discovered in the Korean War that the trajectory of the 3 inch rocket and the 5 inch rocket were not the same by a long shot. The 5 inch rocket referred to for the Banshee and the S-2 Tracker was the USN developed 5 inch HVAR which was one of the most accurate rockets ever developed and used in late WW2, extensively in the Korean War and a lot of other nations. The 5 inch HVAR also had fixed fins and was not fired from pods. The Zuni was a USN rocket developed to replace the 5 inch HVAR. Subsonic aircraft could fly ok with fixed fin rockets. Supersonic not so well. The Zuni was 5 inches in diameter and had folding fins like the SNEB and CRV7 rockets. It was mounted in pods of four. During the Vietnam War, a USN fighter on a strike mission got in a jam and fired one to make the Mig-17 pilot "think" he was firing a Sidewinder. And he HIT the Mig-17 blowing it out of the sky!!! Talk about "accidentally-on-purpose" shot. Now to the CF-100 Canadian night fighter and the 2.75 inch "Mighty Mouse". The "Mighty Mouse" had a motor a lot less in length than the air to ground 2.75 inch rockets that were used in the Vietnam War and today. Just look at the F-94 Starfire article and the folded out doors or find a photo of the F-86D with its 24 round rocket tray down for reloading or the Canadian CF-100 with those wing tip pods firing the "Mighty Mouse". No way they could fit a rocket as long as are described for the 2.75 inch rockets. A rocket would have to be less than 36 inches, complete with warhead and motor to fit in those tubes. I have checked with my retired USN/USAF/US Army friends (most served from the Vietnam War to the 1st Gulf War) and none heard of the 2.75 inch rocket being called the "Mighty Mouse". Many were surprised to hear that it was first employed in the air to air role (one old pilot was in the US Navy before the Vietnam War and knew the first F-8 Crusaders had a built in launcher for the 2.75 inch rockets). BUT I have a 1991/92 copy of THE WORLD'S NAVAL WEAPON SYSTEMS by Freedman (who knows his stuff) and he refers to the 2.75 inch rocket as "Mighty Mouse"!!!! Also, when the Canadians got in on that 1st NATO fighter program with the F-104 (ie CF-104), they had to buy some 2.75 inch air to ground rockets. No way they could use the rockets they had, except the air to air "Mighty Mouse" which lacked the rocket motor for that role. And then the F-5 (CF-5) again the same problem. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilson, I checked and checked with a lot of pilots. Here is a message I left to an A-10A pilot of the 1991 and 2003 conflict in Iraq. Also, the best link on the internet on the 2.75 inch rocket which pretty well makes it clear that the term MIGHTY MOUSE only applied to the earlier 2.75 inch air to air rocket.

Dear Terry,

Andreas, does such a great job. When I come across anything that is a missile or a rocket few years back, I email him the brochure and any photos and he hunts up the official designation number. I mean he does a great job.

As to the second listing, that is where the debate is, they asked me to try and clear up. And on one point, I was right, the original Mighty Mouse was a foot to a foot and a half less in length and a lot less in weight than the 2.75 inch rockets used in Vietnam. If you ever see the rocket trays of either the F-94C or the F-86D in the loading position, you can tell there is no way that they could load the 2.75 inch rockets being loaded in to pods during the Vietnam War.

Also, check that first link. You will see that the makers of 2.75 inch rockets for the US military (called HYDRA) have also warheads with submuntions and time fuses set at launch. One use the US Army and the Marines (ie the USMC especially for their LAV-AD vehicle) considered for the HYDRA submuntion/time fused warhead was a 7 round pod mounted to their anti-air vehicles that used the Stinger IR missile. The role was to get at helicopters hiding behind tree lines or hills out of the line of sight. The idea didn't work out as planned and was killed. It is like a lot of good ideas. Great on paper, terrible in practice. Sort of like Bob Hs favorite combat aircraft -- ie the VIGGIE. <GRIN>

Jack E. Hammond --Jackehammond (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, understand on the air-to-air role of the Mighty Mouse. Also, the page you point to lists the lengths of the various rockets, with the MM having a length of 1.2 meters while the shortest Hydra-70 rocket/motor combination is 1.4 meters.  This whole thing is made more confusing by the lack of official designations for the rockets themselves; it appears only the motors get a designation for some reason.  The confusion (not yours) on this topic reminds me of the confusion some people have with the various 8.8cm cannon the Germans had.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's something interesting re: Mighty Mouse history. Mentioned as developed in a newspaper dated February 7, 1950.  Another mention of it here, in a newspaper dated Feb 7, 1950.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilson, thanks for looking up the articles. I was surprised they did the first testing from a Skyraider? --Jackehammond (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The F-94 Starfire article - SMACKBOT revisions

 * Folks, I am confused. I saw in the history on the F-94 Starfire Smackbot did some revisions.  I looked and could see nothing done. I then looked at the previous editing by Dave.  I can not figure out what Smackbot was doing.  It shows that he did something.  But what????--Jackehammond (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Relax Jack, it's a program that's designed to help editors on article page maintenance, but I'll let you know if it gets out of hand, operative word here being "IF". --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave, Gawd. The MACHINES will take over in the end. Btw, check the TALK page on the F-94.  MilborneOne at last settled a 40 year old debate about the F-94D that has caused more fights in  magazines and forums than you could believe. <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

.

More nutcases
Jack, if you wanna see nutcases at work then you might wanna take a look at this and then tell me if that's a kid whining in the background~? Cheers~! --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 13:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page had this to say - The Hercules series appeared as the M88 in 1961 with the classification of "medium recovery vehicle", seeing action in the Vietnam War. The M88 was followed by the improved M88A1 which was now classified as a "heavy recovery vehicle" and appeared in 1977, based on the M60 Patton chassis. Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

More on the CRV7 article
It seems like every time I glance at this article, I see another statement that looks tenuous. In this case, The CRV7 remains the most powerful rocket to this day, and has slowly become the de-facto standard for Western-aligned forces, at least outside the United States. That statement seems to completely ignore the 68mm SNEB. I don't have any good source for the proliferation of either the SNEB or the CRV7, but my guess would be the CRV7 might be popular in nations of the Commonwealth while the SNEB would probably be used by those who have purchased French aircraft. I also have to wonder how many nations are using the Hydra-70 instead of the CRV7. Do you gentlemen have any information on who might be using these rockets? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Been having our family Xmas. Grandkids are headed to Florida as I type.  As to the statement about the CRVY: the statement is false.  Their are two good reasons: 1> the CRV7 is only made in Canada.  Everyone and his mother has a license to make the French 68mm air to ground rocket.  India sells a lot of 68mm rockets to "un-named" nations.  To wit, the 68mm air to ground rocket by Thomas-Brandt (ie commonly called the SNEB rocket after the 1950s firm) is far CHEAP-ER! 2> The Canadians are extremely picky about the people they sell their war material to.  I mean very picky.  They have a lost a lot of defense contracts over this issue.  A note on the CVR7.  It is in service with the RAF and British Army also (ie RAF Jaguars fired them against an Iraqi patrol boat in 1991).  That is right.  Not only does the RAF have the French 68mm they have the Canadian CRV7.  The reason, if I were to take a WAG (wild a** guess) is that the Canadian CRV7 is cleared for use around high powered radars (ie the reason that RAF Harriers that went to the Falklands were re-wired for the ancient RN 2 inch rocket) and the French 68mm rocket is not.  I have no idea what the French Navy uses from its carrier aircraft.  But I know some USN pilots who during the Vietnam War were spooked by the USN 2.75 inch rockets firing from static electricity, and the French 68mm had a WORST reputation.  On the subject of the French SNEB rockets and the Matra pods.  The most famous "in the news" use of that combination was in the Spring of 2003 shortly after Saddam's army collapsed.  Remember that hotel where a lot of reporters, NGOs, UN and US people were staying at that got hit by rockets.  It was two F4 Matra pods with 18 68mm rockets each.  They bad guys just parked the cart across from the hotel.  Had a timer on it.  And after a short time 36 68mm HEAT rockets came flying.  Unfortunately, the bad guys did not belong to the local chapter of "Iraqis for the Human Treatment of Animals": To wit, that donkey was toast.  Richard Engel said it was one of the closes calls he ever had.  As to the HYDRA, it is usually a package deal.  You buy US aircraft (fixed and rotary) and you buy US bombs, rockets, etc.  You always see in the defense rags, DoD reports on foreign military sales listing after a combat aircraft, so many aircraft, engines, bombs, rockets, etc.  Although I think the British Army uses the CRV7 for its AH-64D fleet, but they use a different pod with that special cap that replaced the fragile cap, where the US Army uses no cap at all.


 * GOOD NEWS! Wilson, I accessed my personal high tech filing system (Touch-&-Find 0.0) and miracles of miracles. I had not thrown away a file I put together in the late 1980s or early 1990s titled: THOMAS-BRANDT.  I got all the goodies.  I will scan and post them in the SNEB talk section.  This is proof that there is a Gawd. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, as always, thanks for the informed commentary. I've ordered an older copy of Jane's Air Launched Weapons and when it arrives, I may take a stab at moderating some of the loose statements in the CRV7 article.  I'd also like to let the holidays pass by to give any interested editors the chance to respond to our comments on the article's talk page.  The article is overall good but there appears to be a bit of manufacturer cheer-leading in it.  Merry Christmas! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Wilson, Check the "SNEB, again" section from more on this subject. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Help with article on Brunswick "Rifleman's Assault Weapon" - RAW
Folks, I notice that "Grenade Launchers" list has the RAW listed but no article on it. I have gotten the information I have available and posted it to the Talk:Rifleman's Assault Weapon. I am no good at starting an article. I can help after the article is started. If anyone can help with this I would appreciate. As this was an interesting weapon, that the Marines would probably like to have today in Afghanistan and definitely in Iraq during their battle for Falujah. And I have see the RAW fired during defense firm show off at Quantico in October 1988. You can not believe something the size of an over size soft ball going through the air with a flat trajectory for 200 meters! I am only using the link to Army Reconn temporarily because it is far easier to show the information that way. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, I put up a stub article on the RAW. Have at it <g>  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, thanks much. You added far more than I expected.  The chart giving the comparison between the two other weapons was a nice touch.  I don't think the RAW actually reached service with the Marines.  They ordered limited production for test and evaluation, and I believe for an emergency production run if necessary.  Also, Special Ops units of all the US military use to order a lot toys this way.  Until the editor at AFJI did some digging I never knew that Congress provided funds for DoD to buy a number of Armbrust.  Never said how many or who got them.  But the sources you got, I know say limited service and we have to go with what the reliable sources say.  Right?  Also, if there is no objections I will delete the link to Army Reconn in the TALK section since some see that as SPAMing.  I will just leave the links to the b/w Brunswick brochures, so any wanting to add, edit or challenge will know who to contact.  Finally, I have brochures of the other two firms that entered this program.  Will try and find them and get back as how to handle the info.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

.


 * Jack, you're welcome. If you have solid information on the real capability of the M433 to penetrate reinforced concrete, pray let us know.  What is in the table is my estimate based on the ability of the round to penetrate 5cm of RHA.  As far as the "limited service" phrase goes, I'd be happy with it stating "test and evaluation" instead.  I wonder if L-3 still has the program in cold storage.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilson, If the M433 is the multi-purpose version of the RAW with a HEAT warhead, I seriously doubt it. It can maybe put a small hole in concrete, but not blast a hole like the HESH RAW was show in photos in the brochure which was reposted in that Jane's Weapon System article. That is why so many US Army/Marine tankers today miss the old HESH warhead that the old 105mm cannon had, before it was replaced with the 120mm cannon (ie smooth bores can not fire HESH do to storage problems with the chemicals coming in the plastic explosive coming unstable when stored horizontally and being shaken during travel -- never figured out why the Abrams engineers did not give a small storage vertical rack, if maybe it is the danger of hit and not blow out panels???). But is M433 the HESH version? If it is, the photos (ie the video of it being tested also shows it) show it in the message at the TALK:RAW.--Jackehammond (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, the M433 is the HEDP munition for the 40-mm M203 grenade launcher. It is rated as being able to go through something like 16 inches of concrete blocks (not reinforced concrete), but who knows what that means as there is probably air space included in that figure.  For HEAT munitions, there is often a rough 3:1 ratio in penetration performance when one compares the penetration in reinforced concrete versus that of RHA, which is where I get the 15cm estimate from.  However, without better documentation, this may be a poor choice for the table entry.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WilsonThere is no way the M433 has much penetration against either steel or concrete. The reason is simple: NO STAND OFF. HEAT warheads to be effective have to be detonated a distance of about four to five or even six times the diameter of their cone from the surface of the item they are attacking, to give the time for the penetration stream to effectively form. That is why Hughes significantly increased the penetration of the early TOW by adding that collapsible probe, and the DRAGON's penetration was not that good because it lacked one and had a blunt nose section -- eg most antitank weapons do not have extremely sharp nose cones for aerodynamics, but to give a stand-off for the HEAT warhead. I would bet that "real" penetration of the M433 is not as it is advertised. They are giving figures almost equal to the WW2 2.36 inch bazooka!


 * Hmm, not sure I agree. The M1 Bazooka could reportedly penetrate 4" of armor.  That is a ratio of 1.7, comparing the penetration to the diameter of the round.  Not much stand-off provided by that round.  The claim for the M433 is a ratio of 1.25 (50/40).  That doesn't seem to be claiming a lot of performance, especially considering that the liner material of the cones has significantly improved since the 1940's.  The I-TOW used a stand-off probe and reportedly can penetrate something like 70-80cm of RHA, or a ratio of 4.6-5.2 (700 or 800/152), which is much higher than the performance of the Bazooka or the M433's reported performance.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)WilsonI think my grammar and syntax is getting in the way.  I agreed with the I-TOW having a much higher penetration.  The reason is the stand off probe.  Like the M433 would have if they stuck a probe on the end just for test firing.  But I was just using the 2.36 inch bazooka as an example of why the claims of the M433 to me sound bogus.  The 2.36 inch bazooka did have a stand off of a sorts, where the stand for the M433 is very nil. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, check, my point was only that 1.25 cone diameters isn't a lot of performance for a modern HEAT warhead to claim. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, a small item of interest to this discussion. Do you know how then Euromissile solved the problem with of having stand-off and the reactive armor problem with their HOT missile.  And it was not with a a probe of any kind, fixed or collapsible.  They have a fuse system similar to that used on the RAW with the HEAT warhead only when the signal is sent to detonate, the nose with a small HEAT warhead is ejected forward to explode against any re-active armor boxes/tiles followed in mirco-seconds with the main HEAT warhead going off.  Little complex in my book that may not work under the strain of battle field conditions. For one multi-spectrum absorbing smoke might render the laser beam ineffective.  And with the HOT having such a huge HEAT warhead, I don't know if reactive armor would be that kind of serious problem.  I would think that replacing the cone with the newer trumpet shaped cone, which resist the side ward forces of REA tiles/boxes would do the trick at a lost less cost and complexity?--Jackehammond (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the Germans had anything to do with the solution; they seem to like complex tech in their weapons. I hadn't heard this and am generally unread in the development of stand-off probes, top-attack missiles, and tandem-warhead missiles, so this is all very interesting.  I am also skeptical of laser beams on the battlefield; too much smoke, dust, or precipitation to scatter them.  I bet the Russian approach would be to fire multiple missiles rather than increase the complexity and cost of the missile itself.  What was it the Soviet general said, something like "perfect is the enemy of good enough". Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Article on OERLIKONs air to ground rockets SNORA and SURA
Folks, Can't figure out why it did not post the first time. RAW section did the same. But what ever. I have posted a bunch of information on the Oerlikon air to ground rockets at Talk:Oerlikon SNORA and SURA-D type rockets. Could someone look at the info and help with a stub. I had to post the brochures at Key Publishing forum, because ARMY RECONN Has no sections on that topic. Also, do not hot link any photos from Key Publishing. They get pretty irate when people do. Also, I have a feeling Wilson is going to amaze and dumbfound me at his ability to research a ton of unknown information. --Jackehammond (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea for an article, the Swiss had a lot of their own weapons that are poorly documented. Not sure I'll find much on this one unless Jane's Air Launched Weapons enlightens me when it arrives.  The internet has some information but not a lot from what I could see.  My enduring memory of the Swiss Army was seeing an old (grandpa) reservist with a light machine gun strapped to his back, peddling a heavy bicycle up a steep road on his way to duty -- and not even breathing hard.  Not a nation to rouse to anger <g>.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, Jane's Infantry Weapons 1984-85 has an article on a SNORA ground launch system. The SNORA's status is shown as "in production" at that time but I noticed the slightly article you linked to showed it as no longer produced.  Do you have any timeline on when the SNORA was developed (1970's ?) and when it achieved operational status?  The article I have only mentions that Oerlikon began unguided rocket production in 1948, but that likely wasn't the SNORA.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of mild interest, mention of a 1957 Oerlikon air-to-air rocket, the Contraves C.7.

Wilson, I had forgotten about that one. I know very little about that weapon. Usually when it is listed as a weapon on an aircraft it is just called Oerlikon 80mm Rocket." My first notice of it came with it being mounted on a very unusual under wing mount on that Spanish copy of the Me-109 under Franco. Also, there are photos of it being shown in front of the Fletcher FL-25 during Marine evaluation at Quantico in the early 1950s. It is a little rocket in length. Has weird fins with two vertical slots cut out of each fixed (not body sliding like the SURAs) fin. Back in those days, Jane's Aircraft (there was no weapons, just aircraft and warships) had just two subsections on engines and sailplanes.--Jackehammond (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Wilson, here is the info on the Contraves C.7 from Bull Gunston classic ROCKETS AND MISSILES. There is a joke about Gunston which is true.  A US publication asked for a simple 7 page article in two weeks.  He delivered 40 pages with photos.  He is just unbelievable.  Not even Bill Sweetman can out do him.  He knew everything.  And that Swiss surface to air missile shown that Italy bought, that was the world's first successful SAM (ie the German's never could get over the tech problems of a good enough sustainer and a proximity fuse).  It was bought by the Swiss, Italians, French, USA and even Japan. The French and USA for evaluation and the other three to test future SAM crews.--Jackehammond (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, It looks like we may not have a page to do an article on soon. It seems the BOT has found it and tagged it for speedy delete.  I removed the notice, once, but it put it back.  So I think from now on I will post all the info on my TALK page for article.  I don't want to run afoul and my account get tagged.  Seems like I can stick my electronic foot in my keyboard faster than anyone in WP history. --Jackehammond (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, I think the robot tagged it because of a lack of content on the main article page. I've put up a stub article that will hopefully hold the fort until we get more meat into the article.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, on the topic of draft articles, check out this link. I use this link as an area to develop new articles of any complexity.  To create your own, go to your homepage and type "/sandbox" at the end of the URL -- it should create the page IIRC. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, by the way, I moved the name of the Oerlikon rockets article to SNORA and SURA-D rockets to make it a bit more compact. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WilsonI saw that ad for the early SURA and remember that Hispano-Suiza (a joint Swiss, Spanish, French firm set up sometimes before WW1 that made engines and armaments and is business grouping unbelievably complex -- I could explain a drug cartel better) originally develped the SURA rocket, and then in 1971 Oerlikon-Buhrle took over the military division of HS and gave the rocket the designation SURA-FL. Btw, did you get to read the info on the TALK page over their before they took it back out. They had nothing to worry about as I posted the info on Key Publishing, but rules are rules. But the administrator was surprisingly nice about it. But again: How do you dig up this stuff???--Jackehammond (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, you wrapped up the development history nicely, it all makes more sense now. I saw the information you posted before it got removed.  It served as the technical data source for the article.  The information on the RWK 014 is in a 1980's copy of Jane's Infantry Weapons.  As to the development and out of service dates, those are best guesses on my part.  Jane's Weapons Systems 1988-89 states the SNORA was no longer being produced by then, while the 1984-85 JIW mentions it still being in production ... as long as those two sources are correct, than means it went out of production between 1985 and 1988 or thereabouts.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, finished adding additional information. The info on the 1971 date comes from ARTILLERY OF THE WORLD page 105 printed 1974 by C. Fox. Do I need to have a reference to this in the article.  Also, the charts are impressive.  Are they a lot of work to do????--Jackehammond (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, do you mean Christopher Foss vice Fox? Yes, the reference should be added.  We could also add the manufacturer pamphlets as sources since they contributed the tech data.  The charts are tedious but not complex.  This code in the article text, {|class="wikitable" style="font-size:97%; text-align:center;"

! SNORA rocket type || RAK 023 HE FRAG ! Projectile weight ! Explosive ! Weight of propulsion unit ! Complete missile ! Muzzle velocity (let each line begin where a "|" symbol is) will produce: See the code in the rockets article, it shows how the multi-column table was made, basically just more "|" and "|-" lines. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4.5 kg
 * 1 kg
 * colspan="5" align=center | 8.7 kg
 * 13.2 kg
 * 820 m/s
 * }
 * Wilson, Yes it is Foss not Fox. Sorry for the typo.--Jackehammond (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

HOT article a little skimpy and not references
Wilson, Dave, Jonothan, in a discussion with Wilson, I mentioned a unique feature of the French/German HOT-3 heavy anti-tank missile (saw a lot of combat with the Iraqi forces in the Iran/Iraq War). Out of curiosity I went and checked out the Euromissile HOT WP article. It is a bare bones article. Citations are zip. Is anyone interested in adding some meat and a change of clothes to that HOT WP article if I hit the books and my touch and find filing system on the HOT. I know I have a lot of stuff on the HOT. Let me know if anyone is interested in a WP HOT campagin. I can supply the intel and logistics - GRIN!--Jackehammond (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, we could develop the revision in a sandbox page and then post it. The article doesn't appear to be under edit at the moment so I don't think other contributors will mind.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilson I have created a sandbox for that HOT article. I have copied the article in to the USER part, and set aside the TALK part at User talk:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT to upload any info I can find and copy. Already found a drawing of the three HOT models which is WP commons and put it there. Also, while putting in some stuff, it stopped me saying someone else was editing it. Found out it was the SinBot. At first I though "SH*T! Not running afoul of the rules again!" I mean I thought, it is a SANDBOX. Then I remembered. Did not sign yea ole NAME. <GRIN> Also, the photos and illustrations look sort of bare. But I can guarantee you I will fatten that part out very fast. Next to the GRU I probably got more junk on Euromissile than most people. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good material. I've also seen estimates for the penetration of the various HOT models, I think it is somewhere in the range 60-80 cm in RHA at 0º obiquity.  Oh, by the way, I ran across an old estimate for Shillelagh performance in one of Steve Zaloga's books - 430mm - sounds quite low considering the missile was 152mm.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, I have the highest respect for Zaloga. But this one I wonder about.  The penetration is less than some individual infantry antitank weapons.  The big question is where is the HEAT warhead located.  If it is located in the front of the missile, that will drastically decrease its penetration.  If it is located in the rear of the missile, that will drastically increase its penetration.  I have never seen a cutaway of the Shillelagh.  Always, wondered why.  Today it would make no sense not to show a cut-away. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pages for you
Jack, you may find this page interesting. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also a good one. Try searching on "Swiss" in keywords. Look at the last two pages of the search -- some information on the Oerlikon rockets along with some photos. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, if you want to see what can happen, when a group with an agenda find an article on WP that is a major part or the part of their agenda, look at Cluster bomb. I recommended on the talk page that the article be split, between the hardware/history and the politics. And I only posted it less than a day, and objection big time. Sort of reminds me of the article on Islam and the Sunnis and the Shias or British India and the Indians and Pakistanis. And if my hunch is right, they believe in the ethics of WP articles, but with this one exception. Sort of like the 30 Years War and those that justified it. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are issues in that article. They've got the history of the weapons strewn through several paragraphs.  Even worse, the article's tone on these weapons is not consistent.  The "history" given by the article starts with the Chechen War although the article has already mentioned the development of the weapons in World War II -- and, interestingly, there does not appear to be any commentary about the desirability of their use in WW2 -- lack of article consistency.  If the use of cluster bombs is bad, it is bad at any time and in any war.  The bit about threats to civilians and UXO are an aspect of any explosive device.  A couple of years ago, a German Autobahn worker was blown up when his earth-moving equipment hit an old GP bomb from WW2 -- threw the earth-mover high into the air and killed the worker.  The weapons don't have to be cluster munitions for these problems to manifest.


 * As far details on the weapons go, my take is that is best left for individual articles of which several exist on Wiki, see here for a list. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, I have no plans to take this article upstairs. I was just posting it FYI of interest. The only time I would contact Dave, Jonothan or yourself over taking at article upstairs, is if something posted was just a flat out lie or would endanger WP like that Tennessee article did. It is just not that important. And thanks for the feed back. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Help again. I think At last I got it right - PRAY!
Wilson, Jonothan and Dave, I know you probably get tired of this, but I need a proof read. I think I at last got it right (on multiple references to the same source, etc). I made some additions to the excellent F2H Banshee article. Polmar who works for USNI and has access to sources and documents that most authors don't (ie USNI is a private association, but it is basically a de facto arm of the US Navy). One on a purposed secret over flight of Russia by the reconn version of the Banshee. So could someone please give it a quick glance and a stamp of approval. Unlike other articles in the past I have helped on there is no issue of breaking WP rules, eg copyright. Just my editing skills. Again, THANKS! --Jackehammond (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, looks fine to me. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

EVERYONE Looked up MATRA DURANDAL which a French made anti-runway weapon that the USAF adopted before the 1991 Gulf War. The French Air Force though did not adopt the DURANDAL instead adopting the smaller BAP 100 by Thomas Brandt (ie they have smaller attack aircraft than the USAF). It was the first dedicated rocket propelled anti-runway weapon ever used in history by the French Air Force taking out a Libyan airfield in Chad. Thomas Brandt also developed a anti-vehicle (including light armored vehicle) weapon based on the BAP 100 called the BAT 120. I have did some searches on WP and can find no references to either the BAP 100 or the BAT 120. If not I will get to work on material for a stub. The hardest part isn't the info on the hardware, but the history (eg when it was used in Chad by the French AF). --Jackehammond (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

.

MATRA Durandal article - lot of false information
Folks, the Matra Durandal article is a lot of hearsay and some just flat out false information. One, it was disinformation by the Israeli AF that it used so called "dribbler" bombs in 1967 and two, the French AF never adopted the DURANDAL. What is the next step Oh Wise Ones. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, looking at the article history, there has only been one substantial contribution since September, so the article is not undergoing intensive editing at the moment. There are a couple of ways to approach this.  One is to "open fire" with changes and see who cries foul -- sometimes no one does, but if someone does, it can make it harder to later come to agreement among editors.  The other way is to post a modified version of the article on the article's talk page and request comments and discussion.  If no discussion comes after a week or so, then post the changes to the article itself.  In any case, for any factual assertions you make, you'll want to cite a source to keep the jackals off your back.  If you believe certain text to be false, then it would be very useful to have a source that states, for example, the Durandal was never taken into French service.  The bit about the Israelis has existed since the first version of the article and should probably be toned down to reflect that they had a Durandal-like weapon and may have used it in the 1967 war (if so much is true ...).  As it is, the Israeli weapon is apparently -not- the Durandal, so why should so much be written about it in an article about the Durandel?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, The Israelis never had a "dibbler" or "dribbler" anti-runway bomb. The whole "fact" about this started with a Ballantine's Illustrated History of the Violent History #27 SIX DAY WAR, pages 60-61 which was printed in 1974. Btw, check out the missile homing in on the parked Mig-17 and check the guidance systems available for the AS-30. And I can guarantee you that back in 1967 IR seekers were hardly good enough for using air to air IR weapons near the ground much less air to surface IR weapon. And to the right you will notice the legendary "dibbler" bomb. Not also it is coming straight down, which won't work for run way busting. And with the dibbler bomb, there is just a rocket motor to accelerate it. No,two parachutes, to slow it down first, then aim it at the correct angle at the runway and the rocket fires driving it through the runway. A dibbler makes no sense. If you can get at the angle to use it effectively, then you got the angle for shallow or dive bomb???? I saw a drawing in one publication that purported to show the dribbler, but never photos of the beast??? The problem that caused all these weapon's rumors was that the Israelis were so successful (and the Egyptian military so terrible) that no one could accept the first raids against the Egyptian AF was done with 30mm cannons and iron bombs. The secret was reducing the war load and come in from NW over the sea. Most of the Egyptian aircraft were taken out with 30mm cannon fire and the runways holed by simple dive bombing with semi-armor piercing bombs. In fact most of the Egyptian AF were back up and running within a day or two. They just didn't have the aircraft anymore. It is all pointed out in a recent AIR ENTHUSIASTS article I guess you will say, "Jack, No we don't take your word for it!" so start hunting.

Wilson, I know you are good at finding the exact article. FLIGHT had an article on runway busting in the last half of the 1980s that is encyclopedic, and I have it, just can't remember which magazine issue. And if you have the data base for "International Defense Review" I have between 1983 and 2000 issues, can you see which issues have the DURANDAL and the BAP 100 and "antirunway". Also, the list weapons at each year end, and it told about the DURANDAL being considered to heavy to be practical for their aircraft. If they carry enough to be effective on the run across the runway, they don't have the range, and if they carry fewer and the range, then they can't effectively crater the runway. Also, on the subject, you will see Mirages carrying the DURANDAL. That is so export customers can see it. The French AF may have had the DURANDAL for a short time, but not for long (ie that is if they ever had it). In 1989 one source stated that France and the USAF were known public users of the DURANDAL and 10 export customers. I wish I could remember the IDR issue, but it stated the French AF basically bought some to test to help Matra with exports, but it decided the BAP 100 was what they needed. Also, Thomas-Brandt developed a antirunway version of its BM 400 stand off weapon, which is a bomb that can be delivered with lob bombing. The antirunway BM 400 had eight BAP 100s inside it. But back to the DURANDAL-like weapon and the 1967 War: In 1967 the Israel AF had the Mirage III which was primarily an interceptor with a secondary strike role. But the Mirage III had five pylon stations (ie the reason the Isaeli AF before the 1967 War were privately funding the Mirage 5 strike/ground attack versions which had four more pylons under the fuselage). four on the wings (ie and two of them only good for air to air missiles), and a center line pylon. For a mission the Israelis would need the two heavy pylons on the wings for drop tanks leaving the center pylon. The size of the DURANDAL means that it would be restricted to just two DURANDALs. Not enough for a successful attack, unless the pilot is willing to make the cross against the runway at landing speed. Also, if the French AF had the DURANDAL why use the BAP 100 in Chad????

Finally, the USAF had to adopt the DURANDAL because of the failure or as the USAF put, behind schedule of a cluster weapon called the Direct Airfield Attack Combined Munition. Problem was the USAF could not make up their mind as to whether they wanted a low level anti-runway weapon, one delivered in a lob-bomb or by the new F-117A stealth aircraft from high altitude. So they did what they always do: They wanted everything and got nothing. Btw, the penetrators were originally a design for the Pershing II to attack Russian air fields and with that treaty, they were destroyed so a parachute and rocket was put on the end for the USAF. And after the 1991 War, the USAF decided that low level AA weapons, made low level high speed attacks against runways, a little on the dangerous side. So they dropped developing the DAACM and any other weapons that required a very low high speed pass. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, check this out. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WILSONI have copied all the info over to User talk:Jackehammond/sandboxes-DURANDAL so we can get everything together and redo that DURANDAL article. I will also get together the stuff on the BAP 100 and the BAT 120. I think maybe WP would have been better to have had a ANTIRUNWAY article with all this stuff. In addition, I searched FLIGHT and came across the French AF attack on that airfield in Chad with the BAP 100. Look at the last message on that sandbox. It is the best primer on this subject ever written. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
Jack, as your talk page is growing quite rapidly, you might find this page useful- Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New award
Jack, in recognition of your determined assault on Fortress Wikipedia <g>, I award you this Wiki Assault Badge. Wear it quickly, a bot may deep-six it at any moment! <g> Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)