Jump to content

Talk:M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System

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

Source v Reference

[edit]

How is a source different from a reference? Must a source be a print book? 2603:7080:9445:3AF4:69CC:1B0D:43EE:AC7A (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wired article does not cite sources

[edit]

Article does not cite sources

DUD RATE: Article states ‘dud rate of 2%’: But (1) Any production line with a dud rate of 2% would be shut down. (2) Only the US Army has the figures of production failure rate or deployment failure rate and that is classified


2) Article states “The missile cannot be used in Afghanistan or Iraq for this reason” which is united and incorrect. MLRS is an area weapon and area weapons are not used in the current Afghanistan deployment for obvious reasons: All targets are point targets

1. That's not a dud rate of faulty submunitions, it's a dud rate for submunitions which failed to explode. For a reliable system (and this is considered to be one), that's caused by a combination of many factors, involving how each submunition lands. Many of the same submunitions would work fine in their designed impact conditions, but it's impossible to produce this when launched in the field. This is partly what makes simple submunitions so dangerous - it's not that they "won't go off", they're perfectly functional, and one unfortunate kick will initiate them.
2. This is a 2008 article. Not all targets were point targets, especially not that far back.
3. We don't require Wired to cite their sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MLRS search results

[edit]

why the MLRS search leads to this article? there are many other MLRS systems besides this american one. for exmaple the Russian 9k58 Smerch MLRS, which is by the way considered the best in the world[1]

in my opinion if there is no general MLRS article then at least the search should lead to exmaples of diffrent MLRS and not specificly to this one.

i dont know how to fix it and wont do it based on my opinion alone anyway, but this is realy hurting the nutrality of Wikiby prefering this MLRS for no apperant reason

thank you! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.237.154 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

This equipment is known simply as MLRS throughout the US and British armies. As thios article is in English, I think it is logical for "MLRS" to be directed here, Perhaps a disambiguation link is necessary. TinyMark 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the thought to direct "MLRS" here because M270s are known worldwide by this name in a way other systems are not, and the M270 actually is not very much like the rocket on a truck MRLs in use around the world (like the one mentioned above). This is a very well known weapon that has been used many times to great effect. MLRS has completely redefined artillery, and is the cornerstone of several Armies around the world. Other rocket artillery systems have different names. I wish the GSRS (USA's original name) had not been renamed MLRS at NAto's request, but as a result M270 is pretty much what "MLRS" refers to out there in the real world. As far as the bravado of the Russian 9k58 claims, I don't recall that system ever being effective on the battlefield. It's not tracked and is basically worthless in mud or terrain (in comparison with the M270, which is as off road capable as any other bradley fighting vehicle.) The M270 can reload itself in 8 minutes from a trailer, truck or even off the ground, while the 9k58 requires a truck and crane like other antiquated models. The M270 was accurate to ten feet in 1982 at ranges triple the max range (and dreadful accuracy) of the 9k58. Also, the M270 is far, far more reliable and versatile with chem, cluster, precision, survelliance and mine munitions (and is even used to take out individual snipers in Iraq and Lebanon). There really isn't much comparison between the systems. A single person can drive and fire a M270 if you don't mind the driver's blind spot. the 9k58 takes four to operate. The amazing breakthrough of the M270 is why it's so important to over a dozen nations, and hundreds have been exported. Only about 35 9k58s have been exported. The most effective 9k58 munitions actually forgo the glasnos system in favor of the GPS system. I just don't think that it's fair to lump all these trucks with missiles into the same category as the MLRS... in fact, it's largely marketing. The MLRS is such a revolutionary system, so even the old 240 MRLs are called MLRS when they go up for sale. Like the Ekranoplans (that largely emulated the spruce goose but all crashed) are promoted as decades more advanced than the rest of the world in ground effect tech, the Russian military is very keen on inflating the performance of their systems without any evidence. The link that the unsigned comment above posted says that his "best rocket system in the world" weighs 42 tons, takes 36 minutes to reload, fires 12 munitions, max submunition # is under 300 bomblets, and the range is max 70 km. M270s weigh around 27 tons, take 8 minutes to reload (that's a very slow time for an M270 crew), fires 12 rockets of nearly 700 bomblets each, and the max range is several hundred kilometers. I noticed that the link posted above pointed out a very vague system for guiding the rocket in flight. M270s also have several guided rocket variants. The link asserts that the 9k58 is the only MRL that can program its rockets, but this is positively false, as M270s certainly do program munitions. Not to sound trollish. That's not my aim. It's just that there really isn't anything else out there like the MLRS. The claim above that there are other cutting edge systems like it are false. The proper general term for these vehicles should be MRL, and it would be if the M270 MLRS wasn't so revered by the Russians that they apply its name to various trucks with rockets on the back. 70.112.220.223 (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for guy who think that m270 is superior to any other mrl/mlrs system, so pls consider/answer this : 1. how it redefined artilery systems ? which "superpowers" have it compared to even good old katyushas of wwii ? 2. having tracked carriage doesnt mean is is "magick" suspension, you know. And if tracked susspension was so superior, why succesor of m270 - himars "reverted" to tracked carriage as was shown on russian/sovies mrl/mlrs ? 3. well 8 min for 12 missiles - that how much per missile ? and compare it to 10-20 mins of soviet lauchres (depending on type) - or if if i want to be "superior", just compare it to 2 mins reload of czechoslovak rm-70 of 40 missilles :) 4. that accuracy - lol, so you claim that 1982 misisle was more accurate than 2010 guided artylery shell , with artylery generaly more acurate than missiles ? 5. warhead variety - well did you even bothered to compare them between m270 and other systems ? well, i must admit trying of lethal chemical warheads by mlrs was not tried by russians/soviets or other states than by us (to my knowlenge) 6.use mlrs to take out single snipr, lol, why use 2 cents bulet (from another sniper) to do that work, when i can use multi hundet of dolar missiles to do that job ? nice war economy and very happy tax payers. 7. if only 1 crew can operate m270, why it have normaly crew of 3 and not only 1 ? 8.ekranoplans - lool. a) spruse goose was normal "altitude" PLANE whcih only managed low-level flight, 

                     b) they were designed as ground efect planes, not as normal "altitude" planes
                     c) none of rusian made ever crashed

9.it not only number of submition that counts, it is thier efectivity/blast range..etc - so most fair is to comapre warhead weight (usefull payload if you want). 10. that several hunders range of for atcams missiles (2 per launcher) with smaller warhead than in single missile from sixpack. normal range for sixpack is around 42km...compared it to 70km of russian...with not so different warheads wheights. 11. yeah, onylest think with what i can agree with you is that boot systems m270 and 9k58 wahe misisle variants which are guided, but that all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.84.189 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a disambiguation link on the MLR page that links here. This seems like a neutral option to me. Ddcorkum (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard term for the weapon category is "MRL" (multiple rocket launcher), whereas MLRS describes ONLY this system. I found the MLRS page after being redirected (I searched for "MLRS") to the MRL page, which is nonsense imho. For teh guy who wrote so much: MLRS range is only "several hundred kilometers" with ATACMS, which is really rather comparable to SRBM and only 2 ATACMS can be loaded by a MLRS (instead of two sixpacks). And M270 was certainly NOT accurate to ten feet in 1982. And the Russian Smerch has less battle experience to show for than MLRS for the simple reason that the Russians didn't invade so many foreign countries as the Americans did in the past twenty years. It's still a very highly regarded system that actually had a smart AT munition (SadArm-equivalent) in service around 1989.Lastdingo (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is posible to add simply new line which say e.q for another mrl/mlrs look here (and here list many different systems, including katyushas :). IMO temrs mrl/mlrs are totaly interchable it terms of battlefield use/military terminology. I cant view mlrs as "trademark" to m270 as others systems are labeled as mlrs too.88.102.84.189 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norway did NOT sell MLRS to LTTE

[edit]

Norway has NOT sold any MLRS to LTTE. All of Norways MLRS are currently mothballed, and a sale to LTTE would certainly have caused an uproar in Norway. Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.101.194 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong?

[edit]

So, is there any mention to the reason why the Dutch, Norwegian and Danish armies no longer use the M270 MLRS? Have they replaced with a newer system, or have they reverted back to guns, or is it just a general shrinking in army size (even then, artillery seems a fairly important thing to keep)? 58.7.187.79 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most MLRS munitions are DPICM, and a quite dud-prone type of DPICM. Maybe some NATO nations retired the system because of the recent treaty to ban submunitions that have a high dud rate. Furthermore, MLRS had 40 km range initially, when 155mm howitzers typically had 24-30km range. Modern howitzers have 40-42km range, the range advantage of MLRS has in practice vanished for most fire missions. The newer MLRS munitions have even more range, but that range is in excess of what's needed for most fire mission. Finally, counter-artillery fires (a strength of MLRS) have evolved technologically, and MLRS hasn't as much advantage over howitzers in that role anymore as well. Lastdingo (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The system was phased out from the Dutch Army (and sold to Finland) due to budget cuts. Phoib (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grid Square Removal Service

[edit]

I have always heard this for the General Support Rocket System NOT the M270, as General Support Rocket System and Grid Square Removal Service had the same initials.Falcon5nz (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt just got them and they are out of service already?

[edit]

The page here mentions Egypt no longer uses them, and the Egyptian Army pages says they just got them. It sounds like an error, that you phase out a system that you literally just received. Phoib (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phase out

[edit]

word on the street is the U.S. phased them out this year (2010). anybody got an official word on that? Brian in denver (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M270 and M270A1 are no longer being produced, that is correct. However, the tracks still exist in the US Military, POMCUS Pre-Positioning of US Equipment and within a few National Guard Field Artillery Regiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.43.187 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XM135 BCW

[edit]

The XM135 most definitely was not intended to deliver VX. The public documentation in the 1980s described its agent fill as Intermediate Volatility Agent (IVA). FOIA released documents describe this in more detail as a combination of critical component DF and noncritical component EA5959 (a mixture of four chemicals/alcohols) to render two nerve agents not previously in the US inventory. It is believed that the actual delivered agent was a mixture of GD2 (binary soman) and 2-methyl-GF2 (binary 2-methyl-GF) based after publically available occupational and environmental studies on pinacolyl alcohol (PA) and 2-methyl cyclohexyl alcohol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid Kirby (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoot, Move, & Communicate"

[edit]

"This was where the saying "Shoot, Move, & Communicate" originated."- No reference to the quote. I thought maybe some mortar-men used this term before this system existed. Wfoj2 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M270, M270 IPDS, M270A1,

[edit]

can anyone add here differences between these versions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.84.189 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/specs.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why there was no serious MLRS system within any of US armed services between 1970 - 1983 ?

[edit]

the last MLRS-equipped LSMR ship went out of service in 1970... but the current M270 went into service in 83'... what caused the US defense contractors to start drawing the blueprints of the current M270 only in late-70's ?

Error-filled Wikipedia article

[edit]

This article needs a lot of work.

Here is a non-usable source with a lot of good info, some of it pointing to where better sources can be found: [https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1531012147785912330 "error filled Wikipedia article" reference}; and a quite useful description of the military systems involved. N2e (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tldr? What are the errors? Schierbecker (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M270 battalions

[edit]

I put together a list of units using the M270 as of 2022. As it is incomplete I do not know if it would be a good addition to the main article. If anyone has any idea or thoughts, please add them below the list. noclador (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Seems to go too far/specific, is such information available for other weaponry in Wikipedia? I don't think so.~~ Mrmarble (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
M142 HIMARS has such a list. That is why I created this one. noclador (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked and redirected M26 artillery rocket to here

[edit]

Blanked and redirected M26 artillery rocket to MLRS section here, a did not contain anything that is not described there.

There was a question about the rockets' cost on its talk page, maybe someone here has an idea. – attomir (talk | contribs) 10:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of M77 and M85 submunitions

[edit]

Is anyone has data on the weight of M77 and M85 submunitions?

All I could find on this topic is the weight of M85, which turns out to be 296 g or 292 g (I did not find any data on the weight of M77 at all.) But if we take the weight of M85 = 292 (296 g), the result does not make sense, specifically: the M26 projectile is equipped with 644 M77 submunitions. We do some simple calculations and get: 644 x 292 g = 188048 g = 188.048 kg. This is the weight of submunitions only, without taking into account the weight of polyurethane blocks, fuse, explosive charge and case. At the same time, the weight of the warhead indicated in various sources ranges from 154 kg to 156 kg, which does not agree with the calculated total weight of 644 M77 submunitions.

For the M26A1, there is no data on the weight of the warhead at all (or at least, I did not find it). But by the same calculation, we get the total weight of 518 M85 submunitions: 518 x 292 g = 151.256 kg, which is somewhat closer to the 154 kg -156 kg indicated by sources, as the weight of the warhead of the M26 projectile (but not M26A1 or A2). But the M26A1 warhead should a priori be lighter than the M26 warhead.

The weight of the M85 submunition does not agree with the weight of the M30 warhead projectile (404 M85 submunitions): 404 x 292 = 117.968 kg, while the M30 warhead should weigh 91 kg (as well as the warhead of the M31 projectile).

Who has any thoughts on this, or maybe other information on the weight of the M77 and M85 submunitions? Rasenn (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M270A2

[edit]

The link to the PrSM redirects to the ATACMS page, not the PrSM page. GoldUSA (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System&oldid=1242470147"