User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 3

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

Panhard VCR

Jack, Dave, and any others, I put up a stub article on the Panhard VCR. If you get a moment, look it over and alter as you see fit. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson You hate me don't you. Yesterday I just put up the material DGA (ie that is the French arms export firm the French government controls) sent me on PANHARD including the photos and fact sheets in English and French they show the various thugs, democratic leaders, etc interested. Do you want to do a sandbox so I can scan and post a bunch of references and material so I don't run afoul of MilborneOne or would you rather I read and post and you edit and rearrange? Just curious. Where did you get that Gawd awful image? <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I think I know why Wiki doesn't like Army Guide's pages. Their "/eng/product4184.html" page appears to be a direct theft of http://www.sinodefence.com/army/mrl/type63.asp. Wiki's article on the T63 was a direct lift as well until it got zapped and replaced by a stub today. The VCR image has one great characteristic; it is a U.S. government image and therefore free for use. Comes out of one their history books on the Gulf War, if you click on the image, it documents the source. Go ahead and make a sandbox for your Panhard article and we can work on it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I am busy scanning some of that stuff that Panhard sent me back in the mid 1980s. I can not add much text without it looking like a C. Foss article. I know I probably got more buried in my defense publications, but that will be add later. So let's forget the sandbox and just edit the stub you have? Also, could you put up a stub on the Panhard M-3. I have a few photos, and the M-3 was what the VCR and the ERC Sagaie and Lynx was a development of and the M-3 was a development of the AML also by Panhard.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson An idea. I have a ton of stuff on the Panhard VCR and versions. The VCR-TH is the most known because of the Iran-Iraq War and Iraq ordered and took delivery of a 100 of them with a reported 2500 HOT missiles. They were the first to see combat and use the HOT missile. The Panhard VCR-TT is just plain UNIQUE with its side mounted hydro-jets and ability to do rivers and moderate sea states and Argentine ordered them. Now for the suggestion. Let's do a large article on the basic Panhard TT which is an APC and the spin off command, engineer and ambulance versions. And two smaller articles: One on the two antitank versions (besides the TH which saw combat Panhard also developed another version for a French Army competition) and a second one on that unique amphibious version with the side mounted hydro jets that Argentine order. Deal? I got the material scanned we need including the manufactures spec sheets and blurps (ie not to be posted but for reference) --Jackehammond (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, sounds okay if there is enough material. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Oh Yea. I got the material. I was thinking the main VCR article will go into the history and the major description of the mechanical lay out and the APC, engineering, command post, and ambulance (they are all pretty much the same) and the sub article will just have a one paragraph explanation with a chart of specifics and photos. This way I will not be cramming a bunch of external images into one article. Check your VCR page for some information from the manufacture. It will help with the charts. Also, I will post the info on the two missile versions and the one hydro-jet version for the sub-articles at the VCR page. --Jackehammond (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I have some information for you on the Panhard VCR article in the TALK section. It is info for the stub on the VCR-TT Hydrojet.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Falklands EXOCET battle

Folks, got another interesting one. I have a lot of photos of the Exocet and the Super Etendard. Luckily for me I requested them before a war started in the South Atlantic. Well, I put them as external images on the EXOCET page. Decided to read up. A few things did not jive. One was that the land launched EXOCETs were mounted on trucks -- ie after the war the British published photos and the one was shown on a trailer and the Argies admitted after the battle they flew it in on a C-130 to surprise the British. Then I saw the old legend about the Peru ordering AM39s to give to Argentina. Peru did loan Argentina some Mirage 5Ps which are a bare bone attack aircraft and have not ability to launch the EXOCET. Also, the war ended to fast and the French would have no reason to sell Peru EXOCETs. And France was having a hard enough time ramping up their own production line on the subject for the Middle East. But when every you bring this subject up, you always hear it was a secret British intelligence operations (ie along with the fact that an EXOCET can sink a large carrier). Well, I deleted that part. But it is back. No citation though. But I was wrong on the AS.12 in the Falklands and the SS.11 in the Atlantic. So who knows. But I have read many a British writer talking about all those EXOCET TALES after the Falkland War. Like it was some super secret weapon the French had that was going to change the balance of naval power, like the HMS Dreadnought did. --Jackehammond (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson, Dave, EtcOn the subject of the EXOCET, I put in a line that the EXOCET was designed mainly to attack light and medium warships and was not that great a threat to large warships (ie look what the Russians have for that job). After the Falklands War there was article after article in various publications asking people to cool it, that an Exocet was not going to sink a larger carrier. Damage yes, but it was not the wonder weapon of a couple of hundred thousands (unlike a torpedo) could destroy a large billion dollars carrier. I don't have the back issues of my Proceedings to 1982-83 (my homes floors were buckling) and I am going to go nuts till I can find a reference. Anyone come across a reference (other than a forum) let me know please. Btw, the one antishipping missile that a NATO nation was manufacturing and exporting that the USN worried about when it came to its aircraft carriers was the Italian/French OTOMAT which had a last minute pull up and dive attack trajectory. One ad in Jane's even shown one attacking a carrier.--Jackehammond (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened is that most people hadn't realized how much naval warfare had changed since the world war. The idea of any ship being severely damaged or sunk by a "mere" missile was shocking. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)



Wilson Well till I do find it, I at least have a consolation prize on the EXOCET article. I at last found the reference, where there "was" an AM38. Most people say the only air launched version was the AM39. But the French did try to develop a helicopter launched version of the first Exocet the MM38, but decided to go with one version for both fixed wing and helicopter. Only five AM38s were built and tested. I even have a photo showing it being carried by the Super Felon helicopter. This will drive our Latin friends up the wall! For what ever reason, Yes, the French designed and built the Exocet, but it is a Latin American weapon - ie sort of like how American's don't want to give any credit to the Germans for the Kentucky rifle. <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Well I found a reference to the effect of an antishipping missile (actually antishipping missiles with larger warheads. I don't know if they will accept it. But this is what I have. If they can't accept Professor Friedman one of the two accepted experts in naval warfare and weapons today, then I will give up! --Jackehammond (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Norman Friedman "The Naval Guide to World Weapons Systems - 1994 Update" page 109 Naval Istitute Press 1994
  2. "1994 Update" has a recent study by the Russians about the effect of missile boat antishipping missiles. 3 hits to destroy a light cruiser, 1 to 2 hits for a destroyer or frigate. Russian missile boat antishipping missile have far larger warheads than the Exocet

Wilson You will never believe where I got one of my edits reverted and redone on the cat fight that goes on about the Exocet and the Falklands War? I was not surprised that it was done by an Argentine, but it was where and what. It was on the WP page for the Super Etendard. Argentine had one carrier but its boilers were in poor shape -- not enough speed to get wind over the deck -- and no one thought they ever landed or launched their SEtendards. But later photos came out showing them landing and taking off. Most believe that it was done as a PR stunt by having greatly reduced fuel loads and on a windy day. I got accused of "personal feelings'" (a.k.a. proBritish). I could go drag out my USNI Proceedings and give a reference, but is the British can move past it, I guess I can. <GRIN> I think next I will go over the Kashmir article and do a little editing. Now if you want to see some "personal feelings" read some of the history of edits on that article!!!!!--Jackehammond (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Breda FOLGORE and Argentine in the Falklands War

Folks, Fiddling around getting together stuff for Wilson's Panhard VCR article I came across the information that I got from Breda on its Folgore antitank weapon. Checked out the WP article, which isn't much and pretty close to a copyright violation. But besides that I remember some "after" the battle photos of the defenses around Port Stanley. To my surprise (and a few others) was a an abandoned fortified position with a Folgore and spent casing and some rounds around it. This was an unknown at that time. I don't know if the Argies had bought some or it was an evaluation weapon taken to the Falklands. At that time the Argentine military bought a lot of stuff under the table and the Italians sold to a lot of people and kept quiet. I added the Argentine flag with a "status unknown." And a small explanation in the article. Could some of you, use your research skills and see what you can come up with. Thanks.--Jackehammond (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything on the net. Any chance that recoilless could have been the 106-mm M40A1, which the Argentines did have in their army? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it this photo? Caption mentions it being 105-mm, but who knows. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThat is it. It is to big for a Folgore (ie it can be shoulder fired). But it looks exactly like it sized up. I will remove the Argentine flag and reference. Thanks for getting it straight. Is that the old US 105mm design that they gave to everyone as military aid when the new 106mm came along? Btw, I have to archive soon. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I was wondering also if it was the 105-mm M27. The back end of it certainly looks like the Folgore and not the M40A1. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it: 105-mm Model 1968, manufactured by Argentina. Some 150 still in service as of 2000. JIW 1986-87 mentions ... the back plate has a venturi mounted on it... (page 689). Do we need an article on it? <g> Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I wonder if Breda in Italy helped them design it. A lot of Argie stuff is designed and manufactured with European help after WW2 and even today. We can do an article. But I sure can't help, as I have nothing on the subject for once. <GRIN> I wonder if the WP Spanish has something? I find some wondrous stuff sometimes cruising the other languages. Like for example the first combat use of paratroopers was by Peru -- ie before WW2 started Italy trained them and -they jumped from a single engine version of one of their old tri-motor bombers. There is a you tube showing them marching to the planes. Take that back. It got removed the color film. But here is a Youtube of still photos check at 1 minute to about 2 minutes. I had a webpage on the history of the subject and the aircraft in Spanish with a translation, but I lot it. -Jackehammond (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Take a look at the Breda Folgore article. I at last found my files on the subject. To be honest, for a weapon that will probably never be in the news and is used only by Italy, we did our selves proud.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, nice to see some of these articles shaping up. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shillelagh, again

Found this in the TRADOC Worldwide Equipment Guide, 2001 edition.

Designator/Name Bore-(mm) Range-(km) Penetration-(mm) %-Hit
US Shillelagh......152mm......3................500.......................80

WilsonThat means it could not defeat the T-72 frontally, even with out reactive armor. No wonder the US Army was not interested in working the bugs out (ie or even using it as a missile only vehicle). The problem is the warhead location. It is probably right up front with no standoff.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment carried out a test under quasi-combat conditions, which gave a more valid picture of the M551's reliability. Its data showed that of a possible 322 missile shots, 113 (or 35 percent) would not have launched due to some kind of malfunction. Only about 50 percent of the vehicle systems were actually capable of firing a missile at the appropriate moment, a sad situation for units placed on the border who would be the first to encounter an enemy in the event of an attack. The 11th ACR subsequently experienced much the same failure rate for missile shots (33 percent). In addition, these tests revealed that the shock of firing conventional rounds prior to a missile often caused Shillelagh system failure." - Ouch. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThe Shillelagh system was just way to ahead of its time. Just to much technology to chew. The US Army also had a low level surface to air system they had to abandon because of the technological leap. Another example is the DRAGON. Yes, it works, but at a price in accuracy, and survivability. All, because the US Army wanted all its requirements met (the tube launch and one man portable). Instead of settling for "good enough" the US Army always wanted "the best" and invented here and made here. One idea with the Shillelagh, was to have two armored vehicles on the same platform that operated together. One would be missile firing and the other a gun vehicle. Nope, the US Army wanted both. And to top it off, they sent the Sheridan to Vietnam. About the only good that came of that was the canister round that the Sheridan had. It was lethal and h*ll to night attacks. And besides the cannon/missile problems, the Sheridan had a lot of mechanical problems!!!! --Jackehammond (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

HOT article is up!

Euromissile HOT. Looks much better than the old version. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, I have nothing to add to that article. I think I would take down the old HOT article and post the new one we have. I give up trying to get the other two ex. images to show. You can see them in the edit part. I have shorten file names, moved them around and no luck. See your VCR section on this talk page--Jackehammond (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, it is up on the main page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I saw you moved the comment about HOT and HOTT and the sales department. I was thinking about deleting it anyway from the main article. Moving it NOTES was a very good idea. Makes the article look more professional. Also, I added some info about the Saudi AMX-10Ps mounting the HOT. I hope I got it right. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Model 1968 Recoilless Gun

Article is up. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThanks. I am going to hunt the Falklands article that mention it and give a link. Now I remember the photo I mentioned I could not find on the web. I thought it was a position recently dug out. It was shallow. But the tube was dismounted and no tripod like in the photo you found present -- it may have been under the cannon tube buried. I have a feeling the photo was taken after an air strike and what I thought was a prepared position, was actually a bomb crater. There were no people around to give a size indication. But the Argies were really poor in preparing their position or camouflage. Not even regular netting to put over the cannon till use! Also, I am going to add a link to the HEAT round. I hope you follow me, to make sure my edits are right and what you agree with.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your encouraging comment to my humble contrib to this stub. Being myself "argie" ( ;)) I'm certainly interested in Argentina's weaponry, and I'm trying to improve existing articles related to that topic (and add new ones!). I do have a bit more info about this weapon (and personal experience during military service!) and will try to expand the article a bit (sometime during this month). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

About the AM39 Exocet in service in the Peruvian Navy

Greetings, you remove the AM39 from the list of Exocet versions in service in the Peruvian Navy, and that's incorrect, in fact the missile have more than 25 years in service in Peru, equipped in the ASH-3D Sea Kings formerly deployed in the helicopter cruiser BAP Aguirre (CH-82). Many sources and even photos sustain this, even I saw the missile in exhibition some years ago. I'll proceed to reinsert the entry. If you have any doubt about the equipment of the Peruvian Navy, please ask me first, I'll be glad to clarify any doubt. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes. The debate began with the Falklands War. I talked to a Aerospatiale official at one time and he stated during the Falklands War there was no Peru order for the AM39, just the MM39. And there were various sources stating that Peru was trying to buy AM39 for Argentine. I checked my references and none listed Peru for the AM39 to that date. I thought it was added in that discussion. Just curious, where do they mount the AM39 on the Sea King? Also, if anyone disputes a remove or edit I make, and reverts it, I do not contest it or dispute it in anyway. I move on, even when I know the fact 100% -- ie my edit about Peru and AM39 during the Falklands War was reverted, without a citation for the revert, but I left it along. Another example, it was Aerospataile that told me that on missions with the AM39, the Super Entendard mounts only one on one wing pylon and the other pylon has a drop tank and (what I did not know) the center pylon is for a pod with the extra electronics for programming the AM39 before launch. I have no doubt it will be reverted to two AM39s on Hi-Lo-Hi missions. If you want to see how facts, myths, fiction and half truths about the Falklands War, go to Archive 2 of my TALK page and read that discussion about the AS.12. Three reputable publications gave totally different accounts of the attack on the Argentine submarine Santa Fe at South Georgia Island. The only item the sources agree on is the use of the AS.12 missile. Not even the quasi-book about Westland the makers of the two or three types of helicopters involved got the same story in the "same" reference book! Please a favor. I can not find a Spanish language webpage on the single engine aircraft from Italy that was used for the first combat drop of paratroopers in the Americas in history during the 1941 War. Could you maybe find it for me???? I have hunted and hunted with my primitive Spanish translation and can not locate it. Check the "Breda Folgore in the Falklands War" for the reason of the request and he last message. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of this?

"When it comes to equipment, the French and Americans maintain their own weapons. French equipment includes a 76-MM self-propelled gun which operates with two drivers and moves forward or backward with the mere flick of a lever. "

-- this is from a U.S. unit newspaper in Germany in 1963. I'm trying to figure out what the 76-mm SP gun could be -- maybe they're referring to an armored car, I recall a French one that was built such that the front and rear mirrored each other mechanically? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonIt is the EBR which Panhard had built a prototype before the Fall of France in 1940. Lot of crude jokes were made about the EBR by US soldiers during the 1950s and 1960s. But it was actually a extremely good idea for a reconn/tank destroyer. Because backing up a tank and turning it around after a tank-ambush is a lot easier said then done. The EBR was the star in that movie made about the soldiers rebellion in Lisbon, which brought down the dictatorship in Portugal in the 1970s. Finally, I was going to work on the VCR project today, when I got distracted by a section on anti-tank grenades in the Hand grenade section. Back in the 1980s I noticed a small paragraph about the US Army considering copying East German anti-tank grenade for its rear area troops as a cheap -emergency alternative. It was called the "HAG" for High-Explosive Antitank Grenade". I wrote to the media relations people with the US Army and I got two photos of illustrations of the HAG concept from the the US army Pickney(sp?) Laboratory. The officer said they were almost thrown out, as the idea was abandoned. Only two photos in existence of the concept. Told me that if anyone contacted him, he was going to give them my address. Never used the photos in an article and almost didn't save them. But as they say in the USA "BINGO" I dragged them out and scanned them. Maybe MilborneOne can copy them over to WP commons as they illustrations by a US Army employee and US Army property. Also, discovered a lot of errors, so it is "to work we go" as they say in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Also, going to need Jonathon and yourself to give my edit a look over as I know the word smithing is not good. <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, thanks. I thought I recalled some jokes by the old guys about French tanks that could move equally well in both directions, and I vaguely recall what you're saying about the EBR. The unit newspaper got the caliber a bit wrong; IIRC the EBR initially had the long 75-mm used by France after the war and that was also used on the AMX-13 before the 90-mm cannon upgrade took place in the 1960's. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the Hand grenade antitank grenade section

Wilson, Dave, Jonathan If you have the time could you please take a glance at Hand grenade the antitank section. I have added a lot of new information and deleted some incorrect information and added to ex. images of US Army illustrations. The only prints they had it seems according to the US Army public relations office in 1985. Thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to give it a better look. One thing that stood out was the "Panzerfmine" -- I think that should be Panzerwurfmine (tank-throw-mine). Do you have any scans of the illustrations that have government markings on them? It would make posting them on Wikipedia easier. As they appear now, they could be (to those who don't know their origin) corporate marketing material and there are busybodies on Wikipedia who will eventually make trouble over it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson You are right. Heck even the references give the correct spelling -- for example. It was a typo I kept doing it seems five time!!!!! As to the photos, I could search for the letter from the PAO at the US Army lab, but it is not worth it. And thanks for working on it.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave The Russians used cloth streamers. The German's used four canvas "sails" so it could be thrown from a greater distance with more accuracy. Btw, the example I shown Wilson is incorrect about the Egyptian home-grown AT grenade: The Egyptians used a small parachute similar to the RKG-3, only it has wire stiffeners the user kept in place till he threw it. I knew about the RKG-3. It was in the history of grenades article I worked on. It is the ultimate in AT grenades. It has a long "can" because the front part is empty and is the standoff to get max penetration. The RKG-3 was not available for export yet in the 1967 War. The Egyptians used mainly the RPG-6 (if anyone can figure Russian designation numbers I would love to know the name of the genius) in the 1967 War. What ever is said, it takes more conjones than ole Jack has to use an AT grenade of any type. Modern tanks are very scary close up. Here is a cut-away of the RKG-3 (btw, don't post it as a ex. image. I am not sure where I got it and I only have it to show for example). While it can't been seen the RKG-3 has a small parachute to make it go nose down in a top attack profile. You have to train a lot to use it. The RPG-6 has a spring out "kite-tail" which enables it to be thrown from a longer distance. But it does not do a good total nose down on the top armor like the RK-3. The RPG-6 is more a side armor attack weapon.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look it up, but I could swear those Soviet grenades date to the Second World War. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Ah, I was thinking of the RPG-6; that was the World War AT grenade. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, (according to RPG-43 apparently the RPG-43 was also an AT grenade developed during the war and was a precursor to the RPG-6. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson The RPG-43 is basically a RPG-40 with a cone to make it a shape-charge/HEAT warhead. It had penetration, but lacked a standoff which reduced what penetration it could have had. The RPG-43 was originally the RPG-1943 till the name was shortened. Why its' successor was not named the RPG-45 I can not figure out. I think the Russians just like to play with NATO's intel peoples brains. <GRIN>. The ultimate AT "grenade" had to be the Japanese Lunge mine a "home all the way" AT weapon! The designer even came up with a simple standoff -- ie three wooden pegs!!! It had a penetration of 6 inches so it did not matter where it explode against "any" tank of WW2.(note check the Panhard VCR article). --Jackehammond (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Jack, I copyedited the antitank section of the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, Thanks--Jackehammond (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, DaveThe guy standing is showing the wrong way to throw the Panzerwumine(L). The photo was taken by the US Army in WW2, but it is from a 1998 book and someone worked hard to go to the Smithsonian archives and find it. So I don't think it would be proper for use to use it, even as an ex. image. But it is interesting. Also a good photo of the Panzerfaust. I can see how US soldiers got the wrong idea when they first captured any.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And full circle -- here is a Soviet 1945 manual on the use of German antitank weapons - good indication that they captured them in significant numbers. Also shows the Panzerwurfmine as well as how to use the 'faust and 'schreck. Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Well I know where they got the manual they copied. From either the Fins or the Germans who passed one to the Fins they translated and copied A former journalists I did some favors for sent me an original back in the 1980s. I scanned it and posted it on ArmyReconn With the exception of the early AT-4 article which has over 36,000 views, it was #2. Never did figure out the interest in one little book???? Also, I posted just a third of it. The sighting photos are almost perfect copies of that little blue book. Btw, the Russians never signed both the Geneva Convention or copyright conventions, so I am taking a few pages <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Award for Supreme Bravery on volunteering for WP

Folks, have any of you went and read the discussion page on the request by WP for new rules on writing biography articles on living people? Who ever takes on that job, got more conjones, bravery, steel in their spine than a lot of people dead or alive now, on battlefields. I think I would rather give a rabid Bobcat a shower and a bath than try and heard that bunch of cats. For myself, if I was the one setting the rules, I would just tell them, what my Mom always told my brother and I when we fought at kids over something: "Ain't gonna be no more WP bios on live people!""--Jackehammond (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The M18 recoilless rifle. Terrible. Just TERRIBLE!!!

Folks, I always make the mistake of getting comparable weapon links, etc for WP article of other WP articles. And that is how I discover, that they either got a lot of mistakes or to be honest "Just plain terrible!" Well, the Breda FOLGORE is similar in operation and concept to the US 57mm M18 recoilless rifle of the Korean War era (ie first saw combat in Okinawa). The second paragraph is totally wrong. They could have had as many HEAT antitank rounds that they wanted for that 57mm weapon and the US Army could not have stopped the Russian T-34 tanks the North Koreans had. 2 inches of penetration is not going to do the deed. Also, I found a WP commons photo of the M18. I wonder why they didn't post it? Last, will I be stepping on toes, if I take out that second paragraph? There is no (none for the whole article) citation for it. --Jackehammond (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That bit about stopping T-34's is incomplete. The M18 or a Bazooka had a chance at stopping the T-34 if they got a side or rear shot in at a good angle. Frontal shot, neither would have penetrated the armor. Maybe the person who wrote that was thinking about the 75-mm recoilless which was also used in Korea. Also, the 57-mm RR was used in the ETO, during the large drops across the Rhine in March 1945. Looks like you've done some nice work on the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the T-34 paragraph. It was stolen from the rt66.com page on the M18. Copyedited and added an info box. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThanks for cleaning up the article. I knew about the Chinese producing the M18, but I always thought that they reverse engineered weapons captured in Korea - ie where did you find the info about the drawings being given the Nationalist? So of the things you learn. Now, about Brazil, I was going to add that. I thought I was probably the only person on WP that knew that little tidbit. Learned otherwise. <GRIN>--Jackehammond (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, the China part was in JIW 1984-85, as was the information about Brazil. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Figures. I have JWS1976 and JWS1988-89. What one issue of JWS mentions, the other doesn't. By the way, I have at last gotten to the bottom of one of greatest Exocet legends/facts/who knows after the Falklands War. To wit, was there or was there not an air launched version of the ship launched MM38 -- ie the AM38. Everyone was saying the AM39 was for high speed aircraft and the AM38 was the helicopter version. Some say the AM38 never existed. It seems the AM38 did exist and five were tested from the Super Felon helicopter in 1973 before it was canceled in favor of the AM39 to do both helicopter and fast mover fixed wing aircraft.
Also, it seems our Jonathon friend has been AWOL for reason. Seems he is cleaning up after the vandals. The most recent being a hit against the Javelin antitank missile -- ie for what ever reason, the Javelin and the Spike are the favorite of teenagers with nothing to do at night.
Last, I found the most "terrible" defense article with that M18 57mm recoiless rifle article. I came across what I considered the absolute "best" on WP. It is an article I did way back in when in the 1980s, the Italian-French Otomat antishipping missile (which gave the USN nightmares). My judgment of defense articles is simply the Golden Age with IDR article of the 1980s. Before 1980 defense articles were propaganda or defense financed and after 1980, they just wrote what was in the brochures and press releases. The one that the WP editors put together is "1980s IDR" Five Star Grade article. In addition, I noticed the photo of the OTOMAT missile being fired. I knew that photo. It was in WP commons but I knew that it was the photo sent me by Matra. Then I read the description. It was a US Navy photo supplied. Back when the US and Libya were at each other's throats, the USN sent me what ever I wanted, and they contacted me and asked if I had any info on the OTOMAT and the missile boats the Italians had built for them. I did (on both the OTOMAT and the Wadi class) and sent them to the USN and they got a clearance from the Italians for a general release. The OTOMAT is a sad story. To make a long story short, the French sales department at Matra stuck a two by four up the Italian's behind big time after the Falkland's War. Is there anyway we can recommend to WP that article? It is not self serving as ole Jack had nothing to do with that article, except forwarding the photo to the USN in the 1980s--Jackehammond (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I know I am being childish and petty, but how come the WP Mil Project is only rating the M18 article a "START". I mean, what else can we add. We took an article that was basically not even a stub and moved it up big time with a lot of hard work and research and we get a "START"??????--Jackehammond (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you can read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale for more information. One thing preventing it from becoming a "B" class article is probably lack of structure. You could also contact Sturmvogel on his talk page and ask about the rating. Article ratings are in some cases valid and in others seem very political. I don't worry about them and prefer to just contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson As I said: I am being childish and petty... <GRIN> Well, back to the grindstone. Looked over the ERC Sagaie article and decided that it need a little word smithing. And I think I will just keep the Panhard VCR article as one article and just expand the history and description and add descriptions of various versions and add some more photos. Btw, No one is screaming about my edit with the AM38 on the Exocet article. I must be good of a sorts at least. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SNORA and SURA-D article copied

There is a redacted version of it in the Spanish Wiki now. Includes a photo of a palace burning, supposedly from attack by SURA rockets. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson It would seem that they would have taken the time to translate the captions from English to Spanish for the ex. images. <GRIN> Also, see the last entry on this TALK page for antitank grenades. Interesting. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks!!

Perhaps this is the first time i had such a good recension!.. But it's not really me, i found a lot of stuff in a RiD Article, a very huge one (in Italy there is anything similar, if you want to 'know a lot', go and buy RiD) and i posted everything useful, as much i can. The Exocet/Otomat marketing theory is really interesting, i wonder, if Italy and France went in a war what hell could happened .. luckily French Navy had S.Etendard/Exocet as well, but with 40 km missiles vs 180 .. bah. And French Navy is perhpas the only one that did not really bothered to have a real CIWS systems, while MM was perhpas the first (NATO) to have them. At least GB and Germany had Harpoon, somewhat in the middle between the two missiles.

Having said that, it's a fact, nowadays almost none buys Otomat, while Exocet is still a good seller article, after all, it's more flexible (as launch platform). I like RBS-70 as well, Tom Cooper once said, they were even (effectively) used vs iraqui T-72s.

About Folgore, my sources claims it was still on test in 1984, so it's impossible it was used in 1982 (Ok, it was a 105 mm RR). I wonder why Folgore is not seeing more success, today enemy super-armoured AFV are not the usual target, and AFAIK, there is still a lot of need for a good (and re-usable) support weapon (like C.Gustav, as example). And maybe M40 RR is still a great stuff to see in action.

Greetings to have dared to post 'comparable weapons' datas, as we should see in Wikipedia (it's a long history, just check Bell 222 discussion page..).--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the Model 1968 Recoiless Rifle article - ie someone found a good photo

Wilson Someone found a very good photo of the Model 1968 in WP commons and posted it. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Energa article

Did a lot of work on this today -- ENERGA anti-tank rifle grenade. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Good article. I am glad someone had donated a photo to WP Commons. The ENERGA secret was the ability to use a nose fuse that did not interfere with the HEAT warhead formation on detonation. The designer came up with a unique solution where the nose fuse on impact sends a flash down the copper liner to the base booster. The secret is you can drop the ENERGA on its nose and it will not explode. Yes the nose fuse might go off but the flash is blocked. I don't know exactly how it works -- ie I think the launch cartridge gases do it if I remember correctly -- but until the ENERGA is launched there remains a block between the booster and the flash channel. Finally, I have been told that if you are not very careful how you fire the ENERGA from a rifle, it will break your collar bone. Also, the Swiss designed their Sig 57 assault rifle to fire that beast, including a rubberized buttstock. Btw, I found a good drawing on one of your reference links about that unique safety. I have made an ex. image to it.--Jackehammond (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackehammond/Archive_3&oldid=1143540736"