User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 6

New Enforcer in Town
Folks, I think we will be noticing it soon. But their is a new deputy "true-believer" in WP town, who is going to make the weapons articles look like a two cats thrown into a bag with a small dog. Very glad I am not an administrator. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plenty of Wiki-Crusaders out there. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson But why? What do they hope to accomplish?  The "Now hear THIS!" type of message has the exact opposite effect??? I find mistakes, and I don't demand a reference or a retraction.  In fact I am curious.  My polite question about HEAT warheads and glide-bombs got me some very interesting information I did not know about.  And if I disagree, I just state why I believe it to be in error and go on. I don't delete it or worst demand they delete it, with a nasty message.  And I have found out that in most of the cases, they are thankful I pointed it out.  And they return the favor when I am stumped on a subject.  Btw, that reminds me, I need Dave and your help on an item.  Will post separate message.  Also on that ENERGA rifle grenade article.  I am getting ready to post an article on its replacement in the US Army, the M31 HEAT.  Took forever to find material (ie thank you GAWD for that one ordnance disposal site you found!!!!).  Your article states that in the US Army the ENERGA was the M28, but I found another source that states it was the M29.  Is the M28 the original ENERGA and the M29 an improved ENERGA for the US Army and US Marines?  Getting information on foreign weapons that the US Army and Marines adopted in the 1950s is dang hard, as the US military only adopted non-USA weapons when they absolutely 100% had no other option. - ie and the reason was pure 100% American VANITY!!! Thanks JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, no idea, the internet in general seems to have uncovered a lot of people with psych issues. On the grenades this site says the M29 was the practice version while the M28 was the actual HEAT grenade. Yeah, we had to get the Energa because the WWII rifle grenades couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of T-34/85's. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilson, I just discovered that there is no WP article titled Wiki-Crusaders. Do you think....Naaa, Jack resist temptation now!!! JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Don't be a fanatic probably covers this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

ISSN numbers or "World Defence Almanac" years -- ie the same for all years
Folks, does anyone know why each year of the "World Defence Almanac" (back to the 1980s) has the same ISSN number of #0722-3226? That is what is on the cover. Someone will probably challenge that fact in references (ie the AT4 article) and I don't have the answer???? JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Jack, long time no talk. Unlike ISBNs, ISSNs are issued to periodicals, and remain the same across the entire publication run since it's impractical to give every issue it's own serial number (and the issue and volume number generally serve the same purpose). Nothing to worry about.  Basically when using them in a reference it's a way to verify that it is, in fact, a real publication and not something made up. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jonathon, Thanks for the answer. I have taken a break from doing the big articles.  Basically I am just fiddling with established articles to improve them and more important get the references.  I have to sometimes get serious about the BGM-71 TOW and FGM-148 Javelin articles.  The TOW lacks references and the Javelin, is long, but sort of hard to understand.  I had the German WP article on the Javelin translated and it is a far better articles (give the German's credit they are "the facts and only the facts" and leave personal opinion out).  I helped Dave with the grammar, etc on a Spanish article brought over to WP.En, but is not as easy I discovered as you would think.  Also, I got a request to get references for the HEAT article.  Also, along with yourself, Dave and Wilson have been a big help.  Believe it or not, I am no longer getting in trouble or stepping on toes anymore.  The only thing I can not understand is WP Commons.  I sometimes think they want a certification of copyright, signed in blood.  JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jack 2

 * It's unbelievable how old is Bonsignore (i am S.M. unlogged).. yes, already in '70s he was on the air. Otomat was built 1.000 c.a., but italian weapon sellers were so smart(asse)s to sell everything they had to any costumer (no matter how he was an ass), Gheddafi was so engulfed of weapons (umbelievable how many OTOMATs!), that he even treated Italy, but it doesn't no matter, if some MM ship was sunk, then it will be another contract for italian industries to built new ones.. really annoying, but it's so. Actually, it seems that Italian industry is KO (-17% in 2009) except the weaponry industry..


 * Greetings! Yes, Bonsignore is old. But I can remember everyone in America bought "Aviation & Marine" just to read his column.  He was very much respected in this country.  As to Italy's weapon's industry, it seem strange that Italy was selling weapon to Libya at the same time the Libyans were digging up Italian graveyards in Libya.  As to the Otomat, I do not think many NATO navies feared the Otomat being launched against their ships, as it being mounted under canvas on merchant ships and fired at Israel.  The Otomat had that long of a range.  The one weapon category that has seriously effected arms sales by Italy has been land mines.  With the new treaty, a very lucrative market for Italy was closed.  Which was not fair to Italy, because they developed self-neutralizing units for all the land mines it manufactures so if they were in the ground more than a year, they would self-destruct.  But those political and human rights activists, just land mines based on the ones made in Eastern Europe, Russia, China and more important PAKISTAN.  And a US fire base in the mountains of Afghanistan last year was almost over run with its US Army soldiers killed for the lack of land mines. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that OTOMAT was not so reliable with diving radar system (sea reflection), but unquestionably, this was the more advanced one (french.. and French navy did not buyed it). Bah. OTOH, Harpoon had the same diving attack system, later shifted to the sea skimming, right? Maybe it's better; but if the ship has very good CIWS perhaps the diving is better (who knows?). I read about modified OTOMATs successfully tested against USN CIWS and air defence systems (it would be very interesting to know more about it). But there are, and always be, some question i cannot understand, maybe do you have an idea about them?


 * Greetings! I have never heard of the Otomat being tested against the 20mm PHALANX CIWS system. I think I read one was tested against that Switzerland Contraves 25mm system that Turkey adopted.  As to the pull-up-dive attack mode of the Otomat, I think that was abandoned for sea-skimming because they found out that the pull-up-dive mode was to vulnerable to systems like the 20mm Phalanx and the Breda 40mm Compacto.  The higher the altitude an antishipping missile is in its terminal attack mode, the more effective radar proximity fuzes are (ie IR proximity fuzes in the 1970s and 1980s were more effective against sea skimmers, till Bofors developed an effective radar proximity fuze that would not explode from sea surface reflection. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1-why Bell is falling so badly? Bell teached to almost the whole planet how to build economic and efficient helicopters (Bell 204-214s). But US helicopter industry, after many success designs, is apparently unable to cope with european competitors.. especially Agusta, that built many Bell models, and was enriched by many contracts about Agusta-Bell stuff (i.e. Persian empire, all italian services). Bell 222/230 was not that successfull either (and actually lost the competition, while it was meant to be a sort of answer to A.109). Quitting Bell-Agusta 139 was an unbelievable herror(horror!!), this model is actually a money well!


 * Greetings! The answer is simple: The MV-22 Osprey. The US helicopter industry has put all of its technology bets behind that one product.  And the Europeans have just kept improving, and improving, conventional helicopters to the point that the world orders European helicopters.  The only helicopter that has no competitor in the world that the US builds is the CH-47 Chinook. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2-naval gun. USN had the first efficient automatic gun (76 mm). OTO design was not so efficient in the early days, it took 10+ years to became a real efficient gun ( from the 'Sovrapposto' to the 'Compatto'). Not one of the other gun builder fought for this market (with a lot of FAC vessels in order in the '70s..), neither Bofors (why not enlarge the 57 mm?), nor Creusot (100 mm reduced), ROF (114 mm), US industry (a new 76 mm design); it's just the same problem with mountain gun. US had the excellent 75 mm (M8), but a new 105 mm gun was needed. Nobody did nothing while OTO Melara built 3.000 mountain guns (in 25 years!). I don't think it was a technology issue: after all, who built the first super-rapid 76 mm gun? Soviets, several years before Super-Rapido gun (AK-176).


 * Greetings! When it comes to naval cannons of the medium to heavy caliber, Italy is the "KING". The only reason that the US Navy buys US designed naval cannons is because of our Congress demanding it.  The most intelligent decision the US Navy could have made was to have bought the Oto Malara 76mm Super Rapido.  That "one" cannon does the missions of the 20mm Phalanx (as hard as it sounds, but it has that rapid a rate of fire and a good fuze and slew rates), the 40mm/57mm cannons and the 76mm medium cannons.  The only role it can not do is the heavy 5 inch shore bombardment.  But the one major error with the 76mm Super Rapido is that it uses a different ammunition than the older 76mm Oto Malara cannons.  The reason was that the shell casing had to be redesigned to accommodate that high speed of loading and firing.  But the Super Rapido can start engaging antishipping missile more than five times the range of the 20mm Phalanx and so many shells would be exploding around it, that it would most likely knock a antishipping missile out of the sky.  Also, as the missile gets closer the cannon switches to submunition darts like used on tank cannon shells.  It is an engineering marvel. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3-missiles. OK, there was the BGM-109 TASM, but even so, why not an enhanced Harpoon with datalink? It's so easy to increase the range, with a turbojet (just add 30-40 kg jet-fuel with a extra-section in the fuselage). I mean, a lot of ships with Harpoons were too short-ranged if compared to Gheddafi Navy, but URSS Navy as well. Is it even possible, that nobody said Ok, italian (and the french industry, but not the silly french navy..) did the Otomat, Gheddafi has it, then we add a 30-40 cm fuselage section, a datalink (Walleye?) and voilà, we have a super-Harpoon missile with 160-200 km range. I cannot understand, with the oustanding progress in missile technology, why US industry didn't this step. They did Skybolt, Polaris, Trident, but not this simple toy!


 * Greetings! I know someone who worked on the Walleye program. It has serious problems with the TV camera (ie the North Vietnamese drove trucks around targets that sprayed oil on the hot engine to cause the TV camera to break lock) and the data link.  Anyway the US Navy is not that interested in engaging heavy warships or warships at long ranges.  About the only need the US Navy sees for a long range antishipping missile is for its submarines.  And it uses the Tomahawk for that role.  Remember, the US Navy has large aircraft carriers.  BTW, the Indian  Navy says the British Sea Eagle is a total failure and have taken them out of service. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To not to talk about European trainer industry: Italy did the excellent MB.326, but advanced too slow with the MB.339, while BAe did the Hawk and France-Germany did the Alpha Jet. But, since then, they never made a successor for them, while Alenia, at the end, did the M.346 (..that initially was the Yak-130, just like MDD did with Northrop and her YF-17..).


 * Greetings! Actually, the Italians took the right attitude. They just kept taking a good trainer design and improving it. A lot like the USAF and Lockheed has done with the C-130 Hercules.  And they manufacture so many (like the old DC-3/C-47) that the cost is much lower than new designs.  The only error of this type of system is that you can not take a pilot from very slow primary trainers to the MB.326 and MB.339.  You have to have a few hours on an aircraft that lands and takes off at a much higher speed.  And I think you will be surprised years later at how many MB.339s are sold.  I really do.  When it comes to "all glass" cockpits and monitors,  the MB.330 is the only cost effective turbo-jet (there are cheaper turbo props) on the market today.  What I would like to see them develop with the MB.339K Veltro 2 is one that can drop laser-homing and other guided weapons for war theaters like Iraq, where there is no problem with being intercepted by hostile fighters or modern anti-air defences.  The USAF and US Navy have admitted they are wearing out (using up airframe and engine hours) the expensive F-16 and F-18s -- ie the US Navy has had to bring back the carries with the A/F-18Es and Fs and replace them with A/F-18Bs and Cs in storage!!!! The South Africa AF used the MB326K as a radio relay aircraft for its behind enemy line reconnaissances groups and in an emergency before the larger attack aircraft could arrive, they would give close air support.  A US Special Operation team of four men were all killed except for one, because of a lack of radio relay in the mountains and it took to long for the F-16s to take off and give close air support.  And it is ridiculous to use B-1B bombers in close air support and radio relay!!! Along with the USAF A-10Cs the next best aircraft today for Afghanistan is the AMX.  Why less advance nations have not bought the AMX is a mystery.  It is the aircraft that should  be bought for the new Afghan Air Force (or those Czech light attack aircraft based on their famous L-39 trainer). JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I wrote an article on the Breda Foglore. I have heard that the Italian Army is not that happy with the Foglore because it took so long to develop and its inability to engage heavy armour.  If I were Italy I would offer them for sale to Afghanistan at a "good" price.  They would be perfect as they would not dangerous to NATO heavy tanks or those fitted with "slat" armour. And the antiamour HEAT shell could have a delay added so it would crumble the liner making it useless against armoured vehicles, but a great long range anti-personnel fire support weapon for  the mountains.  Also, Italy could only supply reloads as they are needed to the Afghan National Army.  Unlike other weapons the Taliban might capture from the Afghan National Army, with captured Foglores they have no ability to acquire reloads -- ie they are made only in Italy -- meaning they would be useless if captured. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The AT4 in Malaysian service
Wilson and DAVE is there any chance, either of you (ie Dave especially as he is in that part of the world) can run down a reference for the AT4 in use by Malaysia. I remember some forums referring to the AT4 being bought in small lost in the AT4 CS (close space) version for the GGK which I think is sort of like "Delta" or "SEALS" are with the US military. Also, remember a small blurp in a defence magazine, a long time ago. Reason, being a mass deletion of users at the AT4 article, and a demand for verifiable references. While, I did not post the users flags, but I was able to reinstate many of the users because I had references. The user section sort of looked naked for what is probably the most used light antiarmour weapon not developed in Russia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, JWA Issue 23 mentions the Carl Gustaf but not the AT4 in Malay service. Might be old information, though. Cheers,W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, I don't think AT4 was ever fielded by the Malaysian Army (or the Malaysian Special Forces → Grup Gerak Khas) but the former still uses the Swedish made 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle while the Singapore Army has largely replaced the Gustav with the locally developed 90 mm MATADOR (weapon) (which is the bigger/badder brother of 67 mm Armbrust). That much I know. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave I will have to either find that magazine article or something else. The reason that it is known that Malaysia bought some AT4 CS rounds was that in Sweden they have to reveal the sale of military equipment for export.  Malaysia was listed on year for a small batch.  That is what triggered the discovery it was for the GGK.  It is surprising what can be found in government documents.  One time in the early 1980s during the Great T-72 scare and infantry antiamour weapons US/NATO, I wrote a very long column for Armed Forces Journal International (which at that time had been published since 1863 and was quite influential -- you would never believe what caused its collapse a decade later -- ie a woman!) and mentioned and touted the Armbrust as the only infantry antitank weapon with almost zero launch signature.  I thought no more about it.  But the next issue, the editor in chief of that publication (a mean ole fart) had done some research and discovered that Congress had inserted a small budget request to buy a small number of Armbrusts for the US Navy.  And if it was the US Navy that meant only one thing: The US Navy SEALs.  Got a lot of people mad over the fact that 1> S.O.B. Benjamin Schemmer had looked this fact up and published it with out giving the US Navy a heads up (ie things don't work in the US as they do in nations like the UK and Singapore when it comes to military security) and 2> The idiots in the US Navy Spec Ops had not used their "black budget" to buy the Armbrusts.  Believe it or not, the USN not only got mad at Schemmer, but also non-combatant Jack E. Hammond!!!! And I had nothing to do with revealing that budget item.  Finally, my sources from "World Defence Almanac" to Jane's publications to others, when they list the weapons that different nations armies have, sometimes list antitank weapons like the AT4 and M72 and Armbrust, and sometimes the military departments public people feel those weapons are in the same category as light machine guns, grenades, etc. and do not list them.  But thanks for trying to look up the info.  But I guarantee you this, will bug me like heck and one day it will be like the second coming of JC or the Mahid with the message I post.  JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. IMO, GGK might have acquired a small batch of those AT4s for evaluation purposes, much like Singapore Automotive Engineering (SAE) did with buying some old/retired M109 howitzers, M551 Sheridans and SK-105 Kürassier for evaluation purposes. Only difference is, GGK might not have done anything further but we eventually got our own locally modified/upgraded AMX-13 (SM-1) or our locally produced Bionix AFV and SSPH Primus. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RPG-2 projectile
Jack, do you have any idea how much explosive was in the RPG-2's HEAT projectile? This information is easy to find for an M20 Bazooka round but is not mentioned in anything I've seen so far on the RPG-2. I'm curious because the PG-2 weighed only about 40% that of the M20's projectile. Likewise, I can't find the explosive weight of the PG-7 projectile, although that one may be on the internet somewhere. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Found this on OrData. PG-7G weighs 1.8 kg and has an explosive weight of 377 grams.  Ah, spoke too soon, it was hiding in OrData under 81-mm projectiles. PG-2 weighs 1.814 kg with an explosive weight of 525 grams.  Another is the PG-7M, weight of 2.4 kg and explosive weight of 314 grams.  Good that OrData is there.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to compare these to other projectiles to get an idea of their explosive power. For example, the 40-mm OG-7V HE grenade has roughly the same projectile and explosive weight of the 57-mm M306 high explosive projectile for the M18 recoilless rifle. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was an interesting document to read about the RPG-7. Not sure why it contends that the PG-7 penetration varies over range; range shouldn't affect a HEAT projectile. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WilsonWhen you are comparing the RPG-7 HEAT round to the M20 3.5 inch HEAT round, remember the M20 weight includes the rocket motor. The figures for the RPG-2 do not included the cylindrical ejection container that screws on before use -- ie that ejection charge does the same role as the rocket motor of the M20 HEAT round.  Also, the M20 HEAT round had to be heavier as it used a base fuze system which was activate by impact (not a nose fuze that caused the base to activate).  So the front of the warhead had to be heavier to transmit the impact force and not collapse before the HEAT round could detonate (ie with  piezzo electric nose fuzes this problem was solved as they were almost instantaneous).  You are right about range.  The only effect of range is possible less penetration at shorter ranges as the projectile is traveling at a higher m/z and can effect the stand-off.  But while commented on, I have a feeling this effect is nil.  The penetration of the projectile at longer ranges moving slower, may be slightly higher, but not enough to take into account IMHO.  Also, an interesting side note.  The Chinese HEAT projectile for their copy of the RPG-2 has better penetration at 0 degree impact (right angle impact) than the Russian manufactured RPG-2 HEAT projectile.  But the Russian RPG-2 HEAT projectile has better penetration at less than 0 degree impacts.  WHY????? I haven't a clue.  Last, the Chinese also copied the M20 as the Type 51.  But it was not to popular with the Chinese military and mainly went to militia units. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, thank you for the comments. The additional weight introduced by rocket components is one reason why I'm interested in the explosive material weight rather than just the projectile weight alone.  And, man, Jack, where do you find some of these details about these explosive little jewels  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilson Another note on the RPG-7. For a long time the best RPG-7 HEAT round was the one manufactured by Egypt.  They made a deal with a West German firm Nobel to design a new HEAT warhead for the Egyptian RPG-7 manufactured in that nation, based on the Panzerfaust-3 HEAT warhead. Caused quite a political fire storm in West Germany. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A table with some information. No real thrust to it, just interested to see how these things shake out on a comparison basis.

Also comments on the relationship of rocket warhead weights to rocket weight overall A very limited sample, but a useful rule of thumb is that warhead weight may often be in the "40's" in terms of percent of overall rocket weight. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2.36-inch HEAT rocket M6A3. Warhead weighed 0.745 kg while the rocket overall weighed 1.55 kg (48% of weight)
 * 4.5-inch HE rocket M8A3. Warhead weighed 7.27 kg while the rocket overall weighed 17.36 kg (42% of weight)
 * 81-mm SNORA rocket. Warhead SSK029 weighed 7 kg while the rocket overall weighed 15.7 kg (44% of weight)
 * 140-mm M-14-OF rocket (Soviet). Warhead weighed 18.8 kg while the rocket overall weighed 39.6 kg (47% weight)

Wilson The figures are interesting for comparison. What throws me is the RPG-43. Since it is hand thrown for only a short distance, I would have thought it would have far, FAR, more HE content. Then I remembered, it is hand thrown for an uber-short distance as they say. If it had a higher HE content, it would be a suicide weapon for real from the blast! Again thanks. I wonder if other editors work as well as we (Jonathan, Dave and yourself) do, or whether egos interfere cause some to want to go alone, so they can "claim" what little credit there is. For myself, just being able to view a "good" article that will help people maybe decades later is enough -- ie sort of a sappy comment, I know, but that is how I feel. Btw, the college kids with no dates and to much firewater on weekends, seem to find the Hand grenade article their happy hunting ground. I gave a heads up to Milborneone. But he believes it has not risen to the level of a page protection. But it seems like ever weekend, the vandalism gets grosser. But I have told the powers that be. And that is all that I can do. Luckily others catch the vandalism and change it with in hours. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Need re-direct of the search phrase M31 HEAT to M31 HEAT rifle grenade
Folks, Could some of you check out M31 HEAT rifle grenade to make sure it is kosher and also have anyone who does a search for M31 HEAT to be re-directed to M31 HEAT rifle grenade. Also, instructions on how to do this re-direct thing. Much appreciated. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Create the page M31 HEAT, and then as the only entry on it, add:


 * #REDIRECT M31 HEAT rifle grenade


 * That's it. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * THANKS Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

War over the AT4 page?
Folks, Heading out for a small spring trip. There seems to be a war brewing between a purist and some IP addressee over on the AT page over user flags. The purist did a mass delete of flags due to no references. I got out my reference books and restored those that were listed. But I could not restore Malaysia (read about it being bought in small numbers for their special ops unit and is listed at one webpage, not considered reliable though). Well someone has come along and restored it. Then the purist took it out. And now it is back. But only this time they just added my reference for others from World Defence Almanac. I reverted it with a small note that the Carl Gustaf was not the same as the AT4 and it was not listed. But that is the last I am going to do it as I don't think it is a big deal. But pig-backing my references might bring all the others users that were listed in question with the purists. And have a feeling the purist is going to come along and back it goes, and then a small war starts. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

M93 HORNET mine
Jack, I got a new assignment for ya again... this one (M93 HORNET mine) is an orphaned article page in a very sad state of neglect, think you are up to the task? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DAVE I will see what I can do. Believe it or not, I have a photo of the dang thing I took at the US Army Association Convention in the 1980s that I can post to WP Commons. Also the brochures. it is just finding them! In addition Hughes developed a anti-helicopter version to protect areas that could serve as LZs. It rotated on sound an fired a fragmentation pluck. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave I found the photo I took at the US Army Association Convention in 1988. It was the photo of the design that LOST. For what ever reason I did not take a photo of the one that won. RATS! Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Award
In recognition of your tireless effort in providing references and wordsmithing for WP:MILITARY articles, I hereby award you this editor star. Cheers and regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

HJ-8, Otobreda 76m, and Jack begging for help!
Jack, I think the article is exaggerating the missile's range but I can't find a source to cite on the range of the latest versions of the HJ-8. I'm quite sure the article is wrong and is just waving the PRC's flag; hopefully, authoritative information will emerge at some point. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There you are~! Jack was looking for you... where have you been? :p -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson Been wonder where you had disappeared to. Dave ask me to look at an article that was a translation of WP Italian.  Really a mess.  So I took it to a sandbox.  If you are interested check it out at this page.  I will let you know when I have finished and replaced the one that exist now. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was looking after family business for about a week and recently have been focusing most of my Wiki-time on a Second World War French Army article. I'll take a look at the article Jack pointed to.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, this is the updated pointer to the product pages vice what is shown at the bottom of the article page. Although the PDF's are billed as "technical specifications", they're mostly just an advertising blurb. Interestingly, what the article claims as a "stealth turret version" is simply described as a lightweight version on OTO Melara's page.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson - Warning: Long Message. I noticed your work on WW2 articles. You got me beat by a 100 miles in that department.  When it comes to the French Army and WW2 the most over looked is the French Army with the Algerians breaking the German lines south of Rome, by attacking where the German's (and the Americans and British) thought it would be impossible.  In my opinion (and some others) that French general was the best Allied commander of the war in Italy.


 * In addition to their performance in the Italian Campaign, I think the French First Army rates with the U.S. 3rd Army as having been the two most effective field armies the Allies had in the Campaign in Northwestern Europe. But try to sell that one on the English language Wikipedia (eyes roll). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to business. I am starting to hate myself (that is after Dave being #1 on my hate list -- i.e. Dave throwing me translated weapons article, telling me it is simply a matter of a few references needed ).  I come across photos I took a long time ago and check articles on them and find no photos or good photos and I up load them to WP Commons and then "all I am going to do" is tag them to the article.  Fat chance!!!! I end up working on the whole article.  I just finished re-doing the AS-30L article.  Then I made the mistake of posting a photo I took of the MILAN antitank missile launcher I had (so I am now messing with that article also).  Then I had one simple photo of the early Spanish C90 individual antitank rockets on display at the Association of the US Army convention in 1988.  Well, the article is a translation of the Spanish article.  I can't figure out the French and German WP editors? They are not only horrible, but very skimpy on what they post.  The Italians are some what better, but the German's are unbelievably GREAT!  I tried working with the translated C90 WP article, but I kept going back and changing and adding stuff, I just took it to this C90-C sandbox to work on.  Getting some order has been a b*tch on this article.  You see there are three main marks (ie and each mark has five different warhead versions!).  All three marks have different length launchers! Try to get that in a specs table!!!! First was the originally "C", then the extended range "CR" and now the improved "CR(M3).  I have references for the "C" and "CR", but the "M3" came after my 1996 references.  I think the "M3" is just the addition of shock-bumpers.


 * I need some "small" help in one department though that I am not familiar with at all: On the discussion page of C90 sandbox I have links to info. One is the google translation of the Spanish WP article on the manufacture of the C90 series, |Instalaza.  I don't know how to do it right.  But could DAVE or you, please get that translation to a WP English article for the C90 article? PLEASE! Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Instalaza. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson On the HJ-8 range. The problem with going over 4000 meters is the weight of the copper wire.  Also, there is a time lag, between transmission of the corrections and receiving (why many like fiber optical cable as it almost instant).  I don't think the author is waving the PRC flag.  I think it is Pakistan.  But I am not going to take it down like a lot of fanatics do.  I just left a note on the subject.  Also, I might post him a message about the subject.  Maybe he will do the right thing and revert to the 3,000 range generally accepted. If ole Roger finds out, he is dead-meat! If Rog ever finds the M72 LAW article it will be a slaughter in the USER section -- only El Salvador has a citation which I added a while back  Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note: ''Development of the OTO Melara 76/62 naval gun series began in 1958. The highly successful 76/62 Compact (over 700 have been produced) appeared in 1967 along with a family of ammunition widely manufactured outside of Italy.'' -From Jane's Ammunition Handbook, 1994, p. 164. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unquestionably the most successful of the 3"/76mm calibre automatic guns is the OtoBreda 76mm L62, which fires a 76 X 636R cartridge. Originating in the early 1960s, this became immensely popular when a compact version weighing only 7,500kg was introduced in 1969. The rate of fire, initially 60 rpm, was increased to 85 rpm in the Compact and has since been boosted to 120 rpm. For anti-missile purposes a lightweight (5.25kg instead of 6.3kg), high-velocity (1,250 m/s instead of 950 m/s) AMARTOF proximity-fuzed shell is being developed, able to reach a target 3km away in less than three seconds. -From Anthony G. Williams' Rapid Fire, p. 139, Airlife Publishing, Shrewsbury: 2000. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson and Dave (and everyone else). Here is the rub (as they say in England) with the Otobreda 76mm article.  It is actually three articles.  And I need advice on how to handle it.  Keep it as one article or divide it off to three or two articles.  The 76mm Compact was developed to replace an older 76mm cannon that while a great naval cannon was on the heavy side.  And the Italian Navy is big into fast attack craft and they wanted a 76mm dual-purpose cannon light enough for 500 ton warships and even lighter, to replace the 40mm cannons they then had.  So the Compact was developed and was a big success.  Then Oto Melara decided it would be a good thing to mount the Compact on a tank hull, to develop an "uber-anti-aircraft tank".  But the original Compact was still a might on the heavy side and plus for the land anti-air role it did not have a high enough firing rate (ie the faster you can get a five round burst out the more lethal and more important "accurate" it will be).  So they increased the firing rate to 120rpm, mainly by reducing the weight of the moving parts.  The uber-AAtank was not a success, with only two built. From their work on the AAtank, Oto Melara offered a kit which would increase the Compact firing rate to 100rpm.  But Oto Melara took that experience further and developed the 76mm Super Rapid naval cannon.  It has a rate of fire of 139rpm (do the math on how long it takes to fire a five round burst!).  Most people think the Super Rapid is an improved Compact.  It is not.  The Super Rapid even fires a different (but same caliber) round to allow the high rate of fire.  The Super Rapid is so good that some navies are ditching the different levels of cannons for a layered defence (ie a separate one to engage anti-shipping missiles and a separate one to engage aircraft and surface targets) for just one or two Super Rapid cannons. It is that accurate and good. Now the question: Do we put all three of these systems in one article with redirects, or do we just mention them with separate articles? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, my suggestion is to handle the naval weapons in one article. The AA vehicle has its own article already --> Otomatic. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson I have gotten all the stuff together and have started on re-editing the article. The tough part is always the first paragraphs.  Then I can get along.  Ran into a problem, that caused me to have to create another article.  The 76/62mm Compact was developed from 76/62 cannon also developed in the early 1950s by OTO-Melara called the ALLARGATO.  Got a sandbox on that also so I can link to it.  Found a WP Commons photo of an Italian warship with a good shot of the ALLARGATO.  If you have a chance take a quick glance at the 76/62mm Compact sandbox and the first two paragraphs.  Just want to make sure I am on the right track.  Btw, those two quotes you found, cleared up a lot of confusion.  1957-58 was when ships were launched in the Italian Navy with the ALLARGATO.  Didn't make sense till I read that first quote.  Finally, I have another WP Fanatic dogging me who is a stickler for rules.  Went to his talk page to find out what got a bur up his saddle.  Found out.  He has had a lot of stuff deleted according to messages, and so now it is his turn.  Going to just move on.  Not going to get in a revert war. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Development of the 76/62 super rapid gun mounting began in mid-1980 as an evolution of the 76/62 OTO compact gun mounting. Its main role is anti-missile defense but it is also effective in either anti-aircraft or anti-ship fire. The new mounting maintains the same architecture and aspects and has identical mechanical and electrical interfaces but it can sustain continuous firing of all 80 ready-to-use rounds at more than 120 rounds per minute. In addition it incorporates a local stabilisation system for better aiming and firing accuracy and is provided with a secondary feeding capability that allows a rapid change from anti-air/anti-missile automatic fire to anti-surface and semi-automatic fire, and vice-versa. The electronic portions of the gun have also been updated with safety firing arcs, pointing accuracy check, status display and BITE functions under mini-computer control. -From Jane's Weapons Systems 1988-89, p. 489, Coulsdon: Jane's Information Group, 1988, Bernard H. L. Blake (ed.) (as is the data in the table below). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson I'm afraid this is going to be another Euromissile HOT article. Damn! Damn! DAMN! As they say "Houston, we got problems."  It is called conflicting experts.  A> One source states that the Super Rapid or sometimes the Super Rapido (what it is called a lot in English articles along with Italian) was designed from lessons learned from the anti-aircraft tank prototypes.  Now I got another saying it was probably the other way around.  B> We got one source stating that the the Compact or Compatto has a lot in common with the Super Rapido.  And another stating it was a complete redesign, and not only is it stated, but I do remember a statement that while both the Compact and Super Rapid fire a 76mm round, they are different -- ie like the three different Oerlikon 25mm rounds.  I am going to scan off the two pages on the Super Rapid by Norman Friedman (in the US and many believe in the world he is the expert-expert on naval weapons) from "The Naval Institute World Naval Weapons Systems 1991/92".  I really hope you can take a good glance at it. You can find them both at the Otobreda 76m sandbox.  I have a feeling that this big article I was planning on the Compact/Super Rapid is not going to be so big.  I will have to just right bunch of generalizations, with notes of conflicting statements in a "Reference Notes" section like the High-Low System article.  Also, I discovered on a webpage used a lot by USN officers that they discovered that in burst fire, the Compact can not keep a pattern in air-air engagements. And I mean they say it is terrible!!! And if you try the high rate of fire in a burst in can break something.  And this is a reliable source with references and names of Chief Petty Officers making the statement -- ie reason the USN went to the Saab-Bofors 57mm it seems. Super Rapid has solved this problem and has great patterns in high rate burst fire.


 * I am still for having a separate article on the older 76mm DP Allargato that the Italian Navy paid OTO-Melara to develop for their new construction in the late 1950s. It was a beast and weighted over 15 tons and only 84 were built and never exported.  The Compact is half of that and have very little in common. The only thing interchangeable is the ammunition between the Compact and the Allargato. And  "MMI" is the initials for the Italian Navy (eg like USN is for the US Navy).  Only Jane's uses that designation on their pages on the Allargato.  All the other articles and references I have do not have that on the end.  Including Aviation & Marine International which was an Italian based magazine printed in different languages.  I think it has something to do with the fact that the Italian Navy probably had all rights to that cannon where the other two were private development.  I will go along with what you wish though if you want all three together.  As I said.  This is going to be another HOT article.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, as far as development relationships go, it seems interesting that the data in the table above is identical for the compact and the super-rapid systems with the exception of rate of fire (assuming Jane's has good data). I have some information on the ammunition, I'll put that in a table for you. Also, this page also comments on the compact's problems with high rates of fire; seems worthwhile to include that in the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson I repaired that link to the sandbox-talk page with the two pages on the Compact I scanned you can read now. I should have previewed it before saving it.  Sadly, Wilson, Janes has also made some pretty serious errors.  This is a serious example from Jane's Infantry Weapons 1995-96. Two of the photos, yes are the Milan.  One is obviously the Bofor's BILL.  And thanks for that link on the problem with the Compact problems at burst fire.  I will definitely include it now since I got a reference.  Why can't the administrators, just accept a reference that says From the All High Memory of Jack E.Hammond Who remember reading it in some publication years ago . I am going to get the article up first on the early 15 ton 76 OTO Melara developed under contract from the Italian Navy in the late 1950s.  Then it is the hard part with the Compact and Super Rapid.  One good item is, we got plenty of good photos by our Italian WP contributors.  Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson I have worked the sandbox on the first OTO-Melara 76mm MMI cannon to the description part. I have about ever information nailed down I need except one: Did the new 76mm cannon for the Italian Navy fire the same 76mm/3-inch round that the US Navy (and other NATO navies) were using -- eg the USN Mk27, Mk33 twin barrel mounts and the Mk33 single barrel mounts? I have looked and looked and can't get an answer? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, I have no good information on its ammunition. Jane's Weapons Systems mentions an earlier version of the book for more details.  Jane's Ammunition Handbook states that the Allargato can fire all types that are also shown for the Compact and the Super-Rapid, but that doesn't address what kind of ammunition the Allargato may have fired in the 1950s. One Italian website mentions the Allargato fired a 6.3-Kg projectile 18 kilometers. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Found someone who remembered about the different ammunition for the Super Rapid cannon. He is going to try and find the article. Basically all three cannons can use the same rounds. Including the round made for the Super Rapid. Only with the early two cannons it would be a waste to use the special round developed for the Super Rapid. It is like buying a car with a high performance engine. Yes, you can use less expensive brands of oil as long as you don't use the car in a high performance race. The round developed for the Super Rapid is designed to be used when it is firing at its highest extremely high rate of fire so it won't malfunction and jam. With the other two, yes they can fire that round, but it would be a waste of money as they don't have that higher rate of fire and a malfunction is not an issue. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bazooka
Good work! Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Actually it shows 203.116.59.28 removing the comment. You might look at |wikiblame for stuff that shows on a page.In this case points to this diff. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for clearing it up. I thought I would be getting a warning from one of the administrators and block for that comment which looked like it came from my account Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How to make links to a page's section
Folks, How do you make a link to a certain section of a WP article. I know how to make link to the page by using the double brackets and the "|". But let's say I want to make a link to the "History" section of the Bofors 40mm cannon. I have seen it before, but I can not find it so I can use one example as a template. For now I am using URL links. But I know that WP would rather have the other type of link. Thanks for any assistance. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bofors 40 mm -- Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks. Also, I have a message in the OtoBreda 76mm section of the talk page Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted article on early Oto Melara 76mm naval cannon
Wilson Well I finished and posted the 76/62mm Allargator article. Only problem is the "R" at the end. The title is suppose to be "76/62mm Allargato"" with no "R" at the end. I posted a note to Milborneone.  Hopefully he has administrator editing authority like when I was a Sysop for Compuserve. Now to get to work on the Otobreda 76mm article.  That is going to be a job!!!! Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jack, see you later alligator~! Sorry for poking fun of you at your expense but I just couldn't resist it... ;P Anyway, haven't seen so much gusto from you in a while but you did great. Good job~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave I was wondering when an Elvis fan would show up.  But seriously, I could not get these articles up and without Wilson. He can find info I can't. How he does it, is a mystery, but he does. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice article Jack. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson And thanks for all the help you gave. Most people I don't think realize that writing an article is easy.  The grunt work is the research.  Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Thanks for all the work you have done on the article. Especially the links. What got me was your giving the picture the name of an "Alpino" class. See this page and this page. Understand. Also, I mistakenly labeled it the "Bergamini" class, because an edition of Aviation & Marine gave it that designation in an article on the Italian Navy -- ie and A&M is an Italian publication that they offered in English in the 1970s!! Well, I checked the next issue and letters to the editors, and the editor stated they received "many" letters, but the one from the captain of the Carabiniere would explain the other letters. In addition a lot of the mistaken ID is a result of Italian going to English. In Jane's Warship 1976 the following comment for the Carabineire which was translated from their reporter in Italy: "The design is an improved version of that of the Centaurio class combined with that of the Bergamini class." What was lost in the translation was it was an improved Centaurio class, upgraded with the weapon systems developed for the Bergamini class. Glad you could cut through the smoke and mirrors. Also, I checked that one very good link on the Allargato and it gave Friedman's excellent 1991/92 work on naval weapon systems as a reference. And I thought "I have a copy and looked and what did I miss." I looked. Nothing on the Allargato. Finally, I found out that at the same time OTO Melara was developing the single barrel Allargato, they also developed a twin 76mm DP cannon that looked like the Allargato with the strange arrangement of one cannon barrel above the other. It was the first in service Centauro class in the late 1950s. The twin design was a total failure and was removed from the warship that it was designed for and and replaced with single barrel Allargatos. Again, thanks for the help, and clearing up that one huge error. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilson You help again with bringing these two articles on Italian WP over to English WP like you did on the Spanish arms firm. One is the Centuro class to show the early-failed twin turret and the Bergamini class to show the first vessels fitted with the new single barrel turret -- ie also a great photo in the article and one English WP article on an Italian frigate has a red link for the Bergamini class. Hope you can help. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What can I say, Jack? In one of my previous job, I was trained to look for photographic details (even if it was subtle differences) with my Mark 1 eyeball, if I'm not sure about the photo I'll dig around until I can confirmed it, otherwise *zip*. This also had the effect of many a times frustrating my boss when he wanted things fast. *grin* -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Check the Talk:76/62mm Allargato on the names of Breda twin 40mm cannon turrets. Lots of fun. Btw, I will be away from my computer till Monday. Wife is claiming I am having an affair with it, and we need some alone time without my electronic mistress. So off north to Michigan lakes for a road trip. I have heard Singapore is great place, but everyone says that you can't beat USA and Canada for road trips.  Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a safe trip, Jack. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, thought you might be interested in this, a blurb from Jane's news teasers, dated April 29: ''Qatar orders Exocet Block 3 The Qatari Emiri Navy is to procure a batch of Exocet MM 40 Block 3 anti-ship missiles to equip its four Barzan-class patrol boats. The boats, which were ordered from Vosper Thorneycroft in 1992 and entered service in the late 1990s, are currently armed with eight MM 40 Exocet Block 2 missiles, a Matra Sadral sextuple launcher for Mistral short-range surface-to-air missiles, an OTO Melara 76 mm/62 Super Rapid gun and a Signaal Goalkeeper 30 mm close-in weapon system'' Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks. But why the combination of the 76mm Super Rapid and the 30mm Goalkeeper? The 76mm Super Rapid is suppose to replace all CIWS cannons with one cannons? Also, I discovered I made a big error that will drive both Dave and you up a wall on the article. It seems the OTO Melara 76mm SMP Type 3 (or SMP3) was a very light weight "single" barrel 76mm cannon - an early attempt at what the Compact achieved later -- which was the first model made by OTO Melara. They were made for evaluation on the Albatross class corvette (ie when they took SMP3 evaluation mounts off both the Sovrapposto and Allargato were far to heavy and they fitted 40/70mm cannons in place of the 76mm SMP3 turrets). They were found to have to low a rate of fire with 30 rpm and ammunition feed. That resulted in the concept of adding another barrel and feed in the same turret with one above the other giving double the rate of fire of 55-60rpm resulting in the twin Sovrapposto turret which was while light weight a failure. And that resulted in the heavier single barrel Allargato turret which was in use till the Compact was developed. Jeez! I didn't know it would take a day and forever to get this puzzle together. One Italian WP editor posted a long message that gave most of the clues, but getting the time line and designation/names down right took a while. That means I got to re-edit that Allargato article again. I wonder why the Italian WP have not posted a detailed article on the OTO Melara's different 76mm cannons??? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo in article title
Hi Jack, I noticed your post to Milborne1's talk page. You can fix the problem easily yourself, click the 'move' tab at the top of the page, enter the correct new name for the article (and the reason) then save. Next thing to do is go to the left sidebar and click 'What links here', visit those articles and rename any links to the correct title. This is done automatically on moving the page but it is better to fix it manually. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Letter at Talk:Battle of Osan to Reagan
Don't worry about the scan, as long as we have a way to track the publication, it is professional enough. I know from experience that a lot of publication from 1980s does not have ISBN number, so the volume and the issue number is good enough by my count. Jim101 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in or amused by this
User talk:ROG5728Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Roger is going to be Roger. I just decided to go on as it is not that important. One of these days he will run afoul of the three revert edit rule and the powers that be take a very dim view of that action. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. I came back.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jack, you are wanted over at Talk:Spike (missile). Oh and if possible... please take a look at the article again, took me quite some time to rework it. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous links to old Popular Science articles
Folks,

I have found a gold mine -- ie well at least to me. Popular Science for Gawd who knows reasons, has archived all its past issues. I know how to search them and when I find one that deals with a weapon, etc. I post a link to it (ie mainly external links, but sometimes references like the A-26 Invader). I have done this for a large number of WP articles lately. But suddenly I have been thinking: Am I breaking some rule or just general ethics? Copyright I know I am not breaking. And comments would be appreciated. Because if I have done a No-No I got a lot of editing to do to take out all those references and external links to the Popular Science articles. Thanks. Jack - --Jackehammond (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as you are not copying verbatim from the articles and just quoting facts and information I dont see a problem. If you use it as an external link it should add some value to the article, normally it should provide additional or in depth stuff that is not in the article. In the future if the articles are later expanded it would then be better to add anything relevant to the article and remove the external link. MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for coming late to the party and I see that MB1 has struck again! HahaHa... Jokes aside and fret not Jack, because basically what MB1 has said is what I also would be telling you. *grin* -- Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with all above. Cheers, W. B. Wilson

(talk) 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-tank guided missile article
Folks,

I am afraid I am going to have to step on some toes on this article. A lot of the entries (eg 2nd genertion antitank missiles) are way off base. I just did some improvements and corrections to the paragraph on the 1st generation, but I fear if I do a general rewrite, there will be some upset people. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article certainly needs a lot of work, but please provide WP:RELIABLE references for your edits. Linking to the talk page isn't acceptable. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hokum Sorry about that. I knew what I posted would be FYI opinion (Gawd I would never be able to find the publications where it debated), so I thought I would just state it on the TALK page instead of the article since I could not reference it for FYI. Again, I understand. And I will go back and reference the paragraph on the first paragraph about 1st generation ATGWs. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, After reading and reading the article, the best way to handle it is with a complete rewrite, ditching the 1st and 2nd generation stuff and concentrating on the History, then the various guidance systems and the type of warheads used. I can early reference that type of article.  And it is the best way to avoid confusion.  For example the first Western and Russian antitank missiles used manual command to line of sight (MCLOS).  And while all the first Western antitank missiles used a trailing wire for the command link, some of the first Russian antitank missiles used a radio link instead of a wire link.  Any comments?  Good idea, bad idea, don't really care how it is done, leave it alone the article ok the way it is, etc? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On another note

 * Jack, you might wanna read this article here. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

2.5 inch mountain gun page
Dear Ron,

I wish to commend you on your hard work on this page. It was done like and expert. Thanks.

Also, are you aware that the Ordnance QF 12 pounder 8 cwt is the cannon that is used by the British RN and Canadian Navy's "Field Gun Run"? I posted a link showing training for it by the RN.

Again, thanks for the excellent work.

Jack E. Hammond
 * Hello Jack, the bloke you really need to thank was Major Darrell Hall who wrote lots of good articles about all types of artillery used in South Africa at various times. Unfortunately he died a few years ago but all his articles are still available at http://samilitaryhistory.org . Please add any extra info you may have to the articles such as surviving examples, photos etc - stuff to interest today's youngsters who may want to know what great or great-great grandad did in his day such as the Boer or Great wars. Video like the link you added is really great ! regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians and inventions
Certainly restore any legitimate information that I may have taken out in my wholesale reversions. There have been a few persistent POV-pushing editors adding lots of uncited (and probably overstated at best) claims about the importance of Hungary in history. I reverted all of the edits from one such editor, realizing that I may have been removing some legitimate content. I assumed that knowledgeable, reasonable editors would restore the few legitimate tidbits. I appreciate your uncommon courtesy! - Special-T (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little copy-editing where you requested, but I really know absolutely nothing about this subject area. So, as I said above, feel free to restore anything I deleted that was actually valid - I was just undoing what looked like wholesale POV-pushing on the part of a single editor. - Special-T (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tetrarch and Locust
Hey, no problem, it's nice to see someone else take an interest in such an obscure duo of tanks. It doesn't surprise me Popular Mechanics were mistaken with the tanks, a lot of historians have as well. Thanks for the links, I'll have a more in-depth look at the Popular Mechanics articles when I have some more time. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Spider LSV

 * Hey there Jack, how's it going? (You didn't tell me anything about that road trip previously!) Could I interest you to take a look at the article page of Spider Light Strike Vehicle which was previously mixed up on the page of Light Strike Vehicle for reasons unknown but was spun off early this year and I only took notice of it today! Mind giving me some help or pointers? Thanks~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave Sorry I took so long to get back, but I have been on a Fall leaf tour with the wife, but on this one my age and knowledge base is showing. I only have information on the original two seater light weight FAV that the US Army's 9th Division at Ft Lewis tested back in the early 1980s after the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem with that, just blast away on the article page of Desert Patrol Vehicle, could use your help filling the gaps in between. Best. --  Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18938/

50 years of Sidewinders apparently.

Also --

"Sharpshooter: smarter ammunition keeps 76/62 Super Rapid in fashion For the past 60 years, Italian armaments manufacturer Oto Melara (part of industrial giant Finmeccanica) has established its ubiquitous 76 mm/62-calibre (76/62) family of guns as the multipurpose weapon of choice for more than 55 of the world's navies. In that time, more than 1,000 mountings have been manufactured by the company in its La Spezia works on the íLigurian coast and by licensees in íAustralia, India, Japan, Spain and the United States"

[first posted to http://idr.janes.com  - 04 October 2010]

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson Long Time No Hear. I have been doing the simple (but needed) grunt work on articles lately.  I have a bunch of sandboxes I have to get to including the Oto Malara 76mm.  But Gawd, I dread it.  The present article just can't be modified or updated, etc.  It will take a full rewrite.  And as you also know, that is dull, monotonous work.  But I know I have to get back to it soon.  I got the info together, it is just getting it in order.  Also, the VANDALS have been super busy of late.  For what ever reason, they love the Panama Canal.  Finally, I have found some awesome articles for ex. links in Google Books for PopSci and PopMech.  You can't find them with word searches because the editors did not name the weapons, aircraft, etc as they should have.  Found a rare photo of the USAF conversion of a C-123 to an all turbojet, the XC-123A.  But you have to know what you are looking at.  Best Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, yeah busy as a bee the last year or so. I haven't done much on Wikipedia, too busy with work, professional certifications, etc.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher Defender
Hi!

I'm glad that you liked my 1971 image of this rare type! By coincidence, I saw another Defender at this year's gathering at Oshkosh, Wisconsin - the first I've seen of this elusive type for many years! Was pleased with myself that I still recognised it! A nice little design. Regards RuthAS (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Relax...

 * Just to let you know, I'm helping you keep an ion Global warming and Climate change. Another thing for you: → http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=8MwyTX-iA2wC&pg=PA491&lpg=PA491&dq=United+Technologies+5+inch+guns&source=bl&ots=J0DJzkkR_k&sig=-zLQu8DMBDNXuNDQUlW9fUGLm28&hl=en&ei=WuTDTKPYL4agvgPoy4zeCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ←,this link has details listed about the 16-inch, 5-inch and 3-inch guns of USN. Best. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave Thanks. Also, I checked that link, and they now will only let you access from page 1 to page 19.  RATS!!! In addition, it is tedious work, but on the Google Books for Popular Mechanics and Popular Science you can find "at last" photos of rare aircraft and rare photos forgotten.  I have come across a number of helicopters and aircraft where WP pages say they existed but no more information.  Unfortunately, you have to know what you are looking at when you see the photo.  Found one on the French Rey R-1 which had super large rubber bushings which allowed the wing out board the engines to move up and down in flight.  No article but I put a reference to the photo.  Now I have found a photo I have been looking for ever and a day, French 1950s Matra Cantinieau.  What gets my aviation friends is the number of articles about new types aircraft that show a photo but never one in flight, stating "Flown in secret."  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave well if I got in trouble over on Talk:Global warming it is without a doubt not taking your advise to relax. What tic me off was not the removal of the ex. link but like they said down South wanting "Jelly on the biscuit" with a charge at the end of the message of linkspam-ing.  And my big mistake was reading some of the previous messages on the that Talk page.  I know, I know 100 times over we are suppose to give "good faith" but Dave I have never see so much over blown egos and agendas as the Global warming and Climate change the editors of those two pages have.  The administrators ought to put a warning sign up on the main page, for the rest of us so we can steer clear of that train wreak.  I know for a fact, that a one Jack E. Hammond, is never clicking on those pages much less editing or posting replies.   I think maybe this is Gawds way of saying I need to get back to that 76mm naval cannon article. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, that page is a Wikipedia featured article and usually a lot of people watches over such pages like a hawk. So if I'm not an expert in such field, I'd stay far, far away unless I'm correcting some bleedingly obvious typographical error or grammatical mistake there. Jack, relax and move on... we have better fish to fry, don't let one or two article take away your joy of contributing/editing here on Wikipedia, ok? As for the link I've provided above, works fine for me so maybe you could try to click it again. If it works, then it must have been some glitch on your side much earlier on. Cheers! --  Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave That link came up perfect this time around. And you are right.  A lot of important information.  Thanks.  And as to your advise about GW and CS pages.  That is one piece of advise you won't have to give a second time.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this two paragraph article I just wrote to see if I am in trouble
Folks,

I have not written a stand alone article in a while. But I came across Grasshopper (robot weather station) and wrote a two small paragraph article. I think I haven't broke any rules. But I thought it needed a page for future reference. If it is no good or not needed delete it. To be honest I thought I had read about everything about the USAF and the Cold War. This one came out of no where. But considering the trouble the German's had with getting the right weather info I can understand the need the USAF saw for possible future conflicts with either large nations like the USSR or China. I just checked and it seems the article will not stand without a category or links to other pages. I am stumped what else I could add or do. So it will probably die. Oh well. It was good practice. I was sort of getting rusty. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Helped you to wordsmithed the article a bit, let's see what others might have to say or contribute. Best. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave Thanks. But no worry now, as it was explained to me that the tags did not mean a deletion of the page.  But if you read those tags you would sure think it did!  Also, look at this link for something I found (ie the page was bare bones with no photos or drawings so this will help big time) from a 1949 article.  It will astonish you beyond belief.   "Homemade Air Sled Weighs Less Than Pilot" , February 1949, Popular Science rare photos of the WeeBee -- ie pages 137 to 139.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the same thing from the Navy http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uOEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=grasshopper+weather+robot&source=bl&ots=Tjy2xyqRCT&sig=k818R_-AAa1AcKwzkmH_BI1lhT4&hl=en&ei=d8vGTOKzCcqG4AbL8JngDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Milborne Thanks. It seems your searching has stumbled on something I was unaware of.  "Grasshopper" it seems is the project name given for robot weather stations delivered by parachute.  Not the name of a one particular design.  Sort of like the name "bazooka".  Thanks for finding that out.  Will have to do some editing and some more research.  My question I would love to know, is why in 1949 and the 1950s was the US military letting the Russians know we had such devices.  It seems like  they would develop counter measures like jamming, etc.  But only because they know of their existences. Also, I wonder if there is a category for "aerial delivered robot senors" or something like that?  In the Vietnam War they were used big time along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.  I mean they had a dozen different type they dropped by the thousands.  The US Army intelligence started getting a clue about the 1968 Tet Offensive from one that smelled human "piss" of all things!!!! Jack Jackehammond (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How to handle this disputeOrdnance QF 2 pounder?
Folks,

I found the Ordnance QF 2 pounder doing some work on the Matilda II tank page. I remembered the comment by Ian Hogg in one of his books (ie he had written hundreds of book and articles on weapons -- ie especially land weapons of WW2) that for what ever reason the British never produced a high-explosive shell for the 2 pdr cannon, and in some cases it put the Matilda tank at a disadvantage. And now for what ever reason a new editor 24.68.145.14 has shown up and is just deleting based on his opinion and no reference. And now he has sort of gotten crude about his revisions. How do you handle such situations? To be honest Milborneone has even on his plate. But when an editor works and finds the references from verifiable sources should that not carry some weight? And suggestions appreciated. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, don't be the least bothered by the uncivil IP editor, if you can find the referenced source then by all means please add it in, subjected to WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and WP:VERIFY of course. BTW, the IP sounds like someone we know but I can't pinpoint yet. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave The reference source is already post where he deleted the one comment. You most likely read his comment about Ian Hogg.  Also, why are these people suddenly coming out of the wood work???? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

240 mm Howitzer M1918 I got stuck with writing needs some word smithing
Folks, I have learned that it you add a reference which creates a WP red link it is like walking your dog and it does its business -- ie it is your job to clean it up. So I had to do a new article. It needs some word smithing if you got some free time. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a tag to the article regarding a lack of inline citations, though don't worry about it. Acather96 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up a bit. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Thanks! I hunted and hunted for a photo of the M1918 and you found it. Adds a lot to the article.  Just curious, I know like me you have read about something but can't find that source to post a reference, but where did you find the part about several M1918s being at Pearl Harbor?  Were they still in use or just in storage?  And one of these days I am going to learn not to jigger with pages and create a red link.  I feel that if I create a red link, I have to do something to make it a green link.  Lots more work than I figured on though.


 * Finally, surfing the back issues of PM and PS I came across an article by Rachel Carson printed in the 1950s as to why winters were not so bad. I am mostly into weapons, but I went over to the "Global Warming" page and posted an ex. link to the article.  I thought I was being helpful.  WRONG! Sees I stepped into the biggest cat fight on WP in years since that Tennessee stunt.  They ought to have warning signs on those pages where agendas and neutral points of view don't exist so innocents like me don't get nailed.  Again, Wilson, Thanks for the clean up, Pearl Harbor and most of all -- that picture.  It really made that article.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, added a couple of cites for the weapons being in Hawaii. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilson Thanks. The first link shows a very good drawing, including the out-riggers the French pictures show. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

KAN Little Joe from red link to green link
Folks, One of these days when I find a good ex link and find the page to post it to and it is a red link I will ignore it. But red links bug me. I have got a stub, but I don't have a public domain photo for the box and I lack an ISBN for the second book I used as a reference. Plus it might require some word smithing. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

May 10 1945 map
Jack, thanks for the comment. I pulled the map information together from about four different sources, including the Soviet official history. A site I recently found the internet with period maps from the war is http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/ Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, Astonishing. Just astonishing at the detail.  I am doing some WP work in reverse now.  I have become addicted to looking through the old Popular Mechanics and Popular Science and FLIGHT editions.  Where I use to start an article outline then find the references, I find the references then I find the article it will match.  For example, there is a small 1/2 ton vehicle the US Army had called the M274 Truck/Platform, in the US Army slang the MULE.  All other references give 1954.  In one 1948 PM edition was a bunch of detailed photos of the exact thing, only it had the name "Jungle Burden Carrier."  Also I discovered that in 1949, RCA was working on the first primitive OCR unit.  But it was way to expensive and required one of those computers hauled in a trailer.  Also, another advantage of old PM and PS editions is photos.  A lot of weapons, aircraft, etc. the companies are gone, but those old issues have a small article with photos -- ie aircraft especially.  But the most interesting item I found was on the first practical system of air to air refueling the UK developed shortly before WW2 for commercial flying boats, in which ever written article describing it got it wrong some way.  It is sort of a treasure hunt for me.  And like that one reference you found on the M1918 240mm cannon that had a drawing showing it had outriggers just like the French 280mm it was based on, and the reference about them being shipped to the Philippines and then detoured to Hawaii. That is the trouble with the references you provide: I can not just stop at reading up on that particular item.  I am like a kid being handed a Xmas toy catalog.   Hopefully, I will get back to the mainstream article writing, and check up on my list of sandboxes.  But for now I really enjoy finding sources you would never think of.  But as I will bet you have found, you have to know what you are looking at: Gold or Fools-Gold.  And as you have tried to tell me over and over since I started on WP:  Avoid the pages where there are egos and agendas and cat-fights.  I have learned that the WP experience is a lot more rewarding if you do.  THANKS! Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, amen. I've had some seriously sour experiences with some of the pages when I attempted to delete what I perceived as propaganda.  Sometimes I got changes right through but there were a couple of instances in which I eventually had to look at all the information again and admit the "other side" had a point (or many) and that I was crusading a bit.  On your topic of vehicles / aircraft, I have come to realize the period right after WW2 to the end of the 1970s is not well documented compared to WW2 and the 1980s forward.  But even some of the 1980s stuff is getting hard to come by; items like the CUCV trucks that replaced the Dodge pickup series in the U.S. Army or the Volkswagon commercial vans that were painted OD and used by U.S. Army Europe back then have some information out there, but not much.  Older, 1950s and 1960s Cold War equipment can be a real challenge at times.  And not well documented on Wikipedia.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilson, That is so true. It seemed after WW2 those that served when they got out, just wanted to forget about it.  And for what ever reason, you can find more information it seems on the French in IndoChina than you can about all the countries in Korea. But one big treasure drove came with the collapse of the USSR and access to a lot (not all) of the Russian archives Jackehammond (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Jack