Talk:MGM-5 Corporal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporal and V-2 at White Sands[edit]

The article currently asserts:

The Corporal was first developed in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico drawing on the technical experience and expertise that the Americans acquired from the German V-2 rocket programme after the Second World War.

While it is true the Corporal was tested at White Sands, during the same time when captured V-2 rockets were being fired at White Sands, it isn't clear that the German rocket team under Wernher von Braun provided "technical experience and expertise" that helped the Corporal effort. Is there any indication that Frank Malina of JPL was much influenced by von Braun? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Private and WAC Corporal rockets were developed by Malina and others at Caltech, starting well before anyone saw a V-2. Let's be careful not to assume that all rocket knowledge came from the Germans, which it did not. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Corporal (MGM-5), not the WAC Corporal or the earlier Baby Corporal. Is it still true to say that the MGM-5 has no influence from the A4/V2 knowledge? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MGM-5 Corporal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MGM-5 Corporal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Recruit deleted.[edit]

I deleted the mention of the Thiokol XM-19 "Recruit" as it was not a developed by JPL and was never associated with the three programs bearing enlisted names which originated with Jet Propulsion. The three named JPL programs were Private, variants A & F, Corporal covering the developmental WAC Corporal, Corporal-E, and Corporal III, as well as the operational Corporal I, Corporal II, and the Corporal's replacement Sergeant. The XM-19 Recruit was developed in the mid-1950s by Thiokol. The Recruit was involved in many sounding and experimental rockets beginning in the mid-1950s. It was flown as an individual stage, as one of several stages, and as an air launched rocket the Recruit T55. Recruit had many uses including the X-17 test vehicle. Recruit was used in many programs including the Little Joe I and II escape test vehicles for Mercury and Apollo. But it was never associated with the JPL programs named for enlisted ranks. Recuit was retired in 1998. One might consider that the X-17 rocket of 1955 was composed of three Thiokol Recruits composing the second stage, and a third Recruit formed the third stage. The first stage was a Huntsville developed Thiokol XM100 Sergeant which was used in the JPL MGM-29 Sergeant missile. Perhaps the Thiokol "Sergeant" was most notably used in scaled down form. It was used as 11 scaled down Sergeants in the second stage, three in the third stage, and one as the fourth stage of America's first satellite, Explorer I. Rocket names can get very confusing as with the Thiokol XM100 which was used in the JPL Sergeant program which might have something to do with the confusion. For it was developed into the TX-20 Sergeant rocket used in numerous programs. When using internet sources for research one needs to always be careful for mistakes are easily replicated from fourth hand to fifth. Wheever assume nothing and be careful to use reliable sources when ever possible.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes concerning accuracy and fuels[edit]

I replaced a footnote where a citation was requested with additional data with citations in the text. I also adjusted the section concerning the fuels used. There I kept the citation from Bragg but included important information as the original author had apparently not read the whole page. I also put the Bragg citation before the shoddy online source source which had simply plagiarized Bragg. People should read all of their sources as that would make for better citations. Bragg gives much more information later in his work concerning improvements in the II and III missiles concerning reliability and accuracy see pages 201-205.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Concerning the History and Development[edit]

Previous authors have made comments upon the deficiencies of the Corporal. The criticisms are essentially correct but a quality encyclopedia article should also explain some of the incredible problems and the compromises necessary to rush an entirely new form of weapon into service. I have tried to not dwell upon the background of Corporal but to utterly ignore it seems irresponsibile to both the subject and persons accessing the article for information. Corporal was taken rapidly from a struggling research program to a weapon being deployed on another continent. It is a tale of incredible weapons system development flawed as it was.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final changes to Design & Development.[edit]

Aside from slight cleanup I have finished the Design & Development section. There is a problem with the entry of the final foot note but it is not obtrusive. I feel that the quality of the article is now befitting an encyclopedia of merit. I have strove to cover the subject from beginning to end. I have avoided anything which may be deemed original research eschewing for example citing the documents in Bragg Volume II. Portions of the original text exist as they matched what my research found and I did not believe they needed citations. Quality of Wikipedia articles varies drastically from stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in a college course, to blatantly propaganda from businesses, to ernestly written adult encyclopedia quality. I have tried to achieve that here. I depended largely on my personal library on the subject. Print sources do not disappear into the ether as web material so often does. Where I have cited web sources it was because I had no more reliable available source. In those cases I did consider the material and used nothing which contained obvious errors. Several citations/sources which were in the article were preserved though in at least one instance I consider it garbage and in others insufficient as a final and exclusive source.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Corporal E not required; all relevant verifiable info in the source can easily be accommodated in the destination and should be.--Petebutt (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During the majority of the time the Corporal E was under design, development and test it had nothing to do with the objectives of the later Corporal weapon system which admittedly was developed from it. The Corporal E was quickly severed from any intention towards a weapon in 1946. It was a research system. The Corporal E was rapidly turned to a prototype weapon development program only in the last two years. That is true but before that it was important to the development of US guided missiles as a vehicle intended for experiment with a drastically different guidance system as well as airframe and motors. While reference to the Corporal E is needed in the Corporal guided missile article as a precursor. To not consider it in it's historical perspective as a early experimental vehicle evades the realities of guided missile technology in the United States from 1944 to 1950. The appearance of Joe I caused a desperate effort by US Army Ordinance to develop atomic warhead delivery system which could be owned and operated by the US Army not the recently separated US Air Force. This article is needed to fill the hole between the US Army recognizing that the long range rocket was a weapon of the future and the first serious attempt by the US Army to develop such a weapon. The United States did not spend much on guided missiles between 1945 and 1950. Most of what was spent was spent by the Army Air Force, later the US Air Force, upon winged weapons. Thus the Corporal E and the Hermes program are important for the technology they developed and not simply a footnote for the later weapons they developed it for.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps the most pointed argument about the proper status of the Corporal E as opposed to the Corporal weapon was explained at the time of their creation by the sponsoring agency, the US Army. The designation of the Corporal E was of a Research Test Vehicle number 2 (RTV-2) while the nomenclature of the Corporal weapon was SSM-A-17 which stood for Surface to Surface Missile-Army-17. If the Army considered them distinctly different in role why should Wikipedia consider them as essentially the same?

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Corporal E Is a separate Missile which deserves treatment as such[edit]

While corporal E was a development which became instrumental in developing a weapon it was a very distinct program before the MGM-5 Corporal was conceived and developed. It was quite different in almost every way. It is true that the RTV-G-2 Corporal E program was turned into a development program for the SSM-G-17. It was a different airframe with a different motor and different guidance system, which is to say it was a different missile which was used in the second half of the programs existence to develop the technology for the eventual SSM-A-17. All services played with designations for political and fiscal purposes. How and why did the XF-95 become the F-86D? JPL was incompetition with GE's Hermes program and blurring the states of development was desirable in an era of highly restricted funding for missile development. Mary Cagle quoted Major General H. N. Toftoy in "The History of the Sergeant Weapon System" (page 8) who she referred to as "the prime mover behind the Ordnance guided missile program during the lean years of the late 1940s" as saying "The carefully planned long-range research and progress achieved during those years of passive support and shoestring budgets paved the way for the tactical CORPORAL." She then observed "The technological progress achieved during those years of passive support and shoestring budgets paved the way for the tactical CORPORAL . . . was a form of 'casting bread upon the waters,' for its returns were many fold." The Corporal E was a primitive guided missile created to develop the technology. Just because it was used in a late stage in the Corporal E program for the development of the SSM-G-17 does not make it the same as a HGM-5 any more than the Titan I "M" series used to test the guidance system of the Titan II were Titan IIs. The Corporal E was an important step in the development of the American guided missile but it was no weapon system. It needs to be treated as such.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the uncontested objection and no support, closing merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MGM-5_Corporal&oldid=1203989928"