Talk:SMArt 155

Designed to Comply With CCM

The article states that the shell was designed specifically to comply with the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Seeing as the treaty was thought up around 2006 and agreed upon in 2008 - whilst the weapon first entered service in 2000 - this seems unlikely. Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

- Not necessarily. The treaty had been in the works since 1997 and earlier (the first iraq war in the 90s first highlighted the problem and again the kosovo conflict). It might have also been a case of the round being desgined based on a wishlist for that convention. Since Germany has been big on using weapons with a small footprint post-operation that might also have been a prerequisite written into the specs. -jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.131.122 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 2 paragraph C of the Convention is probably Aplicable. Quote: "(c) effects and the risks posed by unexploded submuni- tions, has all of the following characteristics: Each munition contains fewer than ten explosive(i) submunitions; Each explosive submunition weighs more than(ii) four kilograms; Each explosive submunition is designed to detect(iii) and engage a single target object; 14 Each explosive submunition is equipped with an(iv) electronic self-destruction mechanism; Each explosive submunition is equipped with an(v) electronic self-deactivating feature;" Darkwand~svwiki (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In service with British Army

The purchase of SMART under the IFPA was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.71.145 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In service with Armed Forces of Ukraine

For me that is not a good representation of the Source. There it says "At the moment, there is no official information that this type of ammunition is used on the territory of Ukraine, but there is officially confirmed information that Ukrainian gunners were trained in Germany to work with them." The Source has a good Argumentation, that it is quite likely that this Type of ammunition is used by the AFU. But to list the UFA as a User Country misrepresents the Source.

Operation Appears to be Incorrect

The article states that the submunitions are pulled out the front of the projectile while in flight, but doesn't cite a source for this. Artillery projectiles that eject payloads in flight almost universally eject the payload to the rear, so I am suspicious of this claim. The cross-section pictures on this site and others also show a separate baseplate and there even appears to be an obturation band (light blue band below the stirrup shaped piece in the nose) that would function as a sealant to more effectively push the payload out the back of the projectile. I am having trouble finding publicly available, English language documents to cite that show specific functioning, but as soon as I do, I will make the edit. 73.120.247.242 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Map wrongly shows Sweden as operator

The map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMArt_155_operators.svg shows Sweden as operator, but it does not align with the text, and I'm quite sure Sweden uses the similar Swedish/French BONUS round instead. I have no knowledge to update the map though. 195.60.68.152 (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect translation of name

Suchzünder translates to seeker-fuse, not sensor-fuse 178.197.219.109 (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Its manufacturers Diehl [1] and Rheinmetal [2] translate it as "sensor fused", as do their US partner General Dynamics [3]. While Wikipedia is often forced to have user-supplied translations, where there is a well-sourced official translation, as there clearly is here, we must defer to that. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)