Talk:Armour-piercing ammunition

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armour-piercing ammunition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Explosives Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

On 23 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Armor-piercing ammunition to Armour-piercing ammunition. The result of the discussion was moved.

For the love of God 2

I've been watching this page for 2 years now. There are almost no references listed at all. There are assertions mentioned without documentation. I'll be blunt. This is the type of article that makes Wikipedia a joke. Last warning given, either it improves or I'm going to recommend that this article be deleted. Tirronan (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll hazard that if you take this to AfD there will be a snow keep. You'd be better flagging it for attention at MilHist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are probably right GraemeLeggett. Or I guess I could challenge it and just delete it. Probably less flack to bring this to MilHist.Tirronan (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive watched this page for years as well and i agree with the OP. It needs a full renovation and should honestly just be a family page for several sub-pages. Like APCBC.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

It appears that this article was originally written in British English. Barring a good reason not to, I'm going to bring it in line per MOS:RETAIN. Primergrey (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armor-piercing ammunition → Armour-piercing ammunition – moving back to the original ENGVAR title Primergrey (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has never been at this title? Previous titles were Armor-piercing shell and Armor-piercing shot and shell, so never with the -our spelling. 162 etc. (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
162 etc. is correct. The article has never been at that title. However, the body of the original article used British spelling. The article was presumably split off from a BrE article by a non-BrE editor. It contained "armour", "mould", "favour", and "calibres", and no distinctly American spellings. The most recent version before edits by the nominator had mixed spelling, and the nominator socialized the ENGVAR issue on the article Talk page (without objection, although not much time has passed by), so I suggest proceeding with this move. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I contest this. This is rapidly getting complicated. It should be a proper requested move. Red Slash 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take that tea sipping gibberish and take it somewere else. :) Honestly though i dont see why we should have a title with silent letters if there is an alternative.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes... the world realizes that Americans already struggle with the metric system, shame to have to subject them to this as well. <rolls eyes> - wolf 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's spelling reforms were inconsistent (what on earth is "cataloged" and why isn't it "catalogged" like all or most other verbs whose base form ends with a vowel followed by a single g!? And it wouldn't surprise me if the American spelling of words like "analyse" were reason so many people think the /z/ sound is written with "z" in English and the common English plural suffix is actually /s/ and not /z/ and only sometimes /s/) and certainly didn't remove all the silent or redundant letters; growing up in Ireland in the 1990s, I remember my classmates (not me) making fun of the stupid American spelling of "neighbour" that looked like "nay-bore". I think the same argument could be made that the British spelling looks like "nay-bower". It's subjective, and since creating new phonetically consistent English spelling is something we definitely are not allowed do on Wikipedia, all we can do is be consistent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move not "support", just "move". As in, this is a waste of time. It's been eatablished that the ENGVAR of the page is British English, so Primergrey should've just boldly moved the page, instead of bothering with this. (IMO) - wolf 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a redirect so I made a technical request. Primergrey (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on your tp. - wolf 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the description of the history. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moving the article is the path of least resistance to making the spelling consistent; so we should do that rather than rewrite the entire article to use the same spelling as the title. --Jayron 32 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This should not have been contested. Creating red tape because the original technical request was slightly poorly worded is silly. That said, an argument could be made that the article's original "creator" chose to use the American spelling, and the article text only used the British spelling because it had been copied from a separate article; personally I'd be inclined to credit SimonP as the article's original creator rather than Ellmist, and the former seems to have made a conscious choice to use the "-our" spelling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN. This article was started with this title spelling, so that's where it should stay. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rreagan007: the established WP:ENGVAR for the article body is Br.Eng, while only a single word in the title, is spelled in Am.Eng: "armor". That vs. at least one hundred and ten (110) instances of that same word in the article, all spelled in Br.Eng: "armour". If we're to follow MOS:RETAIN as you say, then we would go to the first version of the page, which again only has a single Am.Eng variant of "armor" vs. eighteen (18) instances of the same word in Br.Eng: "armour". There are other words spelled in Br.Eng as well (eg: "travelled"). Therefore, the entire article should be designated as Br.Eng and along with that, the page moved to have "armor" in the article title changed to "armour". - wolf 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with content. Full disclosure - I’m a Brit so "Well he would, wouldn't he?". Springnuts (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above.Tirronan (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

confusion

"Large calibre APFSDS projectiles are usually fired from smooth-bore (unrifled) barrels, though they can be and often are fired from rifled guns." so are they usually fired from unrifled or rifled? Sushorse (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic writing agreed. The first segment: "Large calibre APFSDS projectiles are usually fired from smooth-bore (unrifled) barrels" refers to guns firing the smoothbore 120×570mm NATO cartridge (such as the Rheinmetall Rh-120, RUAG 120 mm CTG, etc) and the Soviet smoothbore 115×728mmR and 125×139mm cartridges (such as the 2A20, 2A45, 2A46, 2А75, 2A82, KBA-3, ZPT-98, etc). These are the absolutely most common high caliber (+60mm) cartridges in use today which fires APFSDS conventionally. The next generation of tank guns are also planned as smoothbore etc. The smoothbore barrel allows APFSDS to be fired without a "slipping driving band" on the sabot, which is otherwise needed when firing APFSDS from rifled guns, as the spinning caused by the rifling destroys the fins on the projectile.

As for the other part: "though they can be and often are fired from rifled guns." This refers to APFSDS-projectiles equpped with the above mentioned "slipping driving band" on the sabot for use in rifled guns. Such munition was introduced during the late 1970s for the 105×617mmR NATO cartridge (used in the Royal Ordnance L7 and many others) and during the early 80s for the Soviet 100×695mmR cartidge (used in the 100 mm BS-3, 100 mm vz. 53 and D-10T, etc) and the british Royal Ordnance L11 (which uses two-piece combustable charges instead of cartridges). Such ammunition is getting more rare every year, since the guns using these cartridges are taken out of service, however they do still appear.

--Blockhaj (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]