Jump to content

User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

180 British Pounds?

I think you mis-wrote 180 and 100 "British Pounds" in your last edit on the Eurofighter Typhoon article. If only all military programs where that cheap! Also, you need to be citing where you get your info. If you got this from FI, they do have online archives now,a nd the exact page can even be linked to in the citation. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilcat One big goof. Caused an massive increase of Eurofighters today. Even the USAF is thinking about it. <GRIN> The FI reference stated page 10. Here is the article FI page 10 and FI page 11. --Jackehammond (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At 180 Pounds even I'm thinking about it - even adjusted to 2010 currency and US money, it's still a great deal! :) We all make mistakes, but most aren't this much fun to think about! - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Bicat, Thanks for pointing it out. If one of those Spaniards had found it, they would have been having loads of fun at my expense. For what ever reason, they are wanting revenge over this article and the fact that no one wants to accept that their nation was equally responsible for the design of the Eurofighter. Again, thanks. Also, I owe a big thanks to Jonothan. He was the one that at last got through this ole mans thick skull how you use the same reference over and over in an article. Dave, had the patients to set me on the straight and narrow about WP rules (it seems I broke every one them they had accidentally but in good faith (ie Dave was ready to get that flame thrower he uses on the Latins -- he thought I was a spammer -- when he suddenly came to the conclusion "This newbie is that stupid when it comes to WP!"). And Wilson, is telling me how to do some research to get the credible references -- ie I still like it better if I could just put down "From His Most High, Sir Jack's from Memory" but they have said that is a no go. It seems I am totally misunderstood. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Giving References and adding photos to WP commons

Folks, I took a look at the Nord SS.11 article and am going to correct some errors and add some info and references. I have a very good book by Anthony H. Cordesman titled THE LESSONS OF MODERN WAR V.III which deals with the Falkland's War. He states the use of the SS.11 in that war. But he also gives references for that statement. Do I state the book or the reference he gives in the end of the book? Also, is there any "easy" way to upload a photo to WP Commons. The one and only time I done it, it was a big PAIN in the A**! Suggestions. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I'm not sure there is a rule for this one but I suggest using the reference you have in hand. That way, if the author got his own reference wrong, you won't propagate an error. Sometimes, these books are almost completely present on Google Books and you can check the reference and then use the original if you please. SS.11 used in the Falklands -- by the Argentinians? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonNo, it was by the older British Army Scout helicopter. That makes the reference sort of suspect anyway as the book say "Royal Air Force." A lot of people get that confused about the UK armed forces. The British Army has small liaison and reconnaissance and the antitank helicopters and the RAF has the lift helicopters (ie Pumas and Chinooks). At this time the British Army had not gotten its Lynx/TOW helicopters up to speed so it might be true.--Jackehammond (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looking this up in The Falklands Air War and it mentions that four SS.11 equipped Scouts were operated by the Royal Marines (3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron). I will have read of what they got up to I presume you need to correct or cite the info in the SS.11 article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry their was also four British Army SS.11 Scouts as well, I have tweaked the text if only to remove the RAF bit! MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


MilborneI checked with Al J Venter's (ie he has reported every war it seems in Africa since the 1950s) "THE CHOPPER BOYS - Helicopter Warfare in Africa" printed in 1977 and he states on page 42 that the first use of a wire guided missile was from helicopters (ie not named but it was either the Sikorsky S-55 or the S-58 as the H-21 was found unsuitable for attack roles), first with the the SS-10, and then in 1956 the SS-11 (the first two I would bet were just jury rigs) then the in 1958 the French introduced the Alouette turbine helicopter to Algeria with a lot more power and a lot less weight designed to fire a special air launched version of the S-11 called the AS-11. Also, on ground launched, the Israelis used the SS.10 in 1956. But they had the SS.11 in the 1967. I wonder if the SS.11 was used in combat in the 1967 War? --Jackehammond (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


EVERYONE, Could someone take a look at both the Nord SS.11 and Aerospatiale SS.12/AS.12 article which I did extensive research and editing to -- ie both are very similar weapons, only the "12" is much larger. Also, I added some countries to the list, but I don't know where to find the flags.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Might find Category:Country data templates helps with finding flags etc. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)



Dang It! You can't even rely on old time authors that had proven out in the past. Found out that the French did not first test antitank missiles from Helicopters. They first tested the idea from the MD 311 a pilot/bomber/navigator trainer version of the Dassault MD 315 Flamant as a way at getting at fortified caves located in steep mountain gorges. And they never did air to surface fire the SS.10 in the Algerian War from either a fixed wing or helicopter. Both the SS.10 and SS.11 came into service the same year, and the SS.10 would have endangered the aircraft due to is short range. So it was the SS.11. But the French Army did pick up the idea for helicopters being armed with antitank missiles from the French Air Force experiment. As Wilson has discovered with Jane's JWA there is no such thing as a trust and reliable source. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jane's is very weak with some topics, British weaponry being a prime example. They don't like to talk about their own gear in much detail. I also wish if they would produce reference books on ammunition, that they would provide informed estimates of the performance of the ammunition, but they don't, unless it is a re-hash of some intel about nations the West doesn't like that has been released by western governments. Then one might see armor penetration data. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

.

The Sandboxes-HOT

Wilson An idea. Maybe we should move the template located on the TALK page to the USER PAGE and remove the HOT article I copied and put there, located at User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT that way there would be no confusion on the sandbox TALK page? --Jackehammond (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, sounds good. I did make some notes on the user page regarding countries that have the HOT that we may wish to keep for reference. Cheer, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Passing the Smell Test statements in missile articles

Folks, I have been studying military (weapons especially) way to long. I want to be able to write my first article for WP (ie OK! I admit it. I am one of the few WP editors that has an ego unlike the rest of you monks <GRIN>). But I check on articles and either ain't much or the stuff is just put in wrong and worst it is not true. I started out looking at the JAVELIN and TOW article which lead to the ERYX article, where I with the help of lot of people got decent article. That lead back to the HOT and MILAN articles (which I have on a low burner for now) and that has lead to the SS.12 article (ie which we just gotten straighten out) and then the AS.12 (almost done) and then stupid me I clicked the link which lead to the guidance systems of 1st and 2nd generation systems MCLOS and SACLOS (total train wreaks) and then I saw links for the early SS.10 and ENTAC. "JEEZ!" is the best way to put it. But the problem is my military interest and the smell test. Below are two that are not adding up. And they got good references.

Quote - The AS.12 saw action on both sides of the 1982 Falklands War. It was fired from Westland Wasp helicopters against the Argentine submarine the ARA Santa Fe. A total of nine missiles were fired at the submarine trapped on the surface by a Mk 46 anti-submarine torpedo circling just under the hull [4]. Of the missiles fired four hit, four missed and one failed to launch. Two of the missiles that hit the target failed to detonate on impact, instead punching a hole through the slender conning tower and exploding on the far side.

In an unusual mission, it was fired from a British Wessex helicopter at Port Stanley town hall on 11 June 1982 in an attempt to disrupt a meeting of senior Argentine personnel that took place there every morning. Both missiles that were fired missed. - Unquote

Looks great. Even had a book as a reference. Only problem is the part about a anti-sub torpedo circling below it and nine missiles fired. The RN sent an auxiliary vessel and a small frigate down to South Georgia Is to take down the Argie flag, etc. Both carry two small helicopters that can carry either two small AS torpedoes or two AS.12 missiles. When they arrived to check the harbor they were as surprised as the Argie submarine was. And it high tailed for the open ocean (bad news for the two RN ships if it made it). Everything I remember from those days was it was just the axillary ship's helicopter that was there and it had two AS.12s to get even. It scored one lucky hit on the subs sail which made it impossible to dive. I saw the photo of the sub (the crew ran it aground) and it did not look like the missile passed through with no explosion. But even if both helicopters had shown up, NINE AS.12s fired???? Next is the AS torpedo. They don't work in shallow waters (why European nations still have rocket throwers). Sound bounces off of shallow surfaces making it next to impossible to home correctly. Last was the WESSEX helicopter trying to get the Argie command. Yes, it could launch both the SS.11 and AS.12s in support of the Royal Marines that other Wessex's landed. But only one got down to the Falkland's and flown off before that container vessel which brought the Harriers, Chinooks and Wessex got hit. I have a feeling it was pretty rough to operate that one Wessex, when the RN had a lot better and smaller and agile helicopters to do the deed. And the Argies had ton of antiair weapons around Port Stanley including long range stuff that would have made life very unhealthy for a heavy agile-NOT helicopter like the Wessex.

I read that as well and wasn't sure what to think -- the bit about the circling torpedo sounds wrong somehow, but then, my knowledge on naval weapons is very limited. More about this in ARA Santa Fe (S-21). What an end for the USS Catfish. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Torpedo failed to detonate, according to this. Also see this photo and this photo for evidence of damage to the sail. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
WILSON Ref: AS.12 against Santa Fe. I can accept the AS.12 firings. The part about the anti-submarine torpedo I just don't know. For one it was on the surface and those little AS torpedoes have to be dropped pretty close which would have brought them within machine gun range. I have read some of the other Argie records and some are, I just don't know. I do know one thing, the British lucked out on the Santa Fe. It was a patrol submarine, which meant long range. It could have played it quiet for a while and waited for a storm (ie making ASW work next to impossible) and headed towards the Falklands or stuck around South Georgia Island. And it had older torpedoes that worked unlike that one short range German submarine, which got to the Falklands and fired a lot of torpedoes, but all failed -- ie the Germans were upset over the failure and came to Argentina to find out what the heck happened and discovered that a Argentine crewman was really doing his job and checking the connection between the submarine and the torpedoes. You see those small coastal submarines made in Germany, you don't load the torpedoes like you see in the movies. They are loaded like an old muzzle loading cannon in dry dock or slung out and then a hatch is closed (Russian subs are big on this) and the back is opened and the electrical umbilical cord that delivers DC to the torpedo just before launch is attached. But you have to keep close watch that they don't get salt water corrosion. The sailor was dedicated in his duty. Only he connected them backwards. And that DC power before launch is what spins up the torpedoes gyro. And it meant the torpedoes gyro was spinning "backwards." A German Navy officer sent an article to USN Proceedings about their investigation, stating it was how he was making it clear you had to test fire weapons a lot, to avoid such mistake. Many believe the German industry put him up to it, as they feared he poor performance would hurt export sales. The Argies deny it and says they did everything right, and no way one of their sailors could be that stupid. I go with the Germans myself. Most USN officers accept the German version, because of their memories of USN torpedoes during WW2 in the Pacific -- ie no one huge error was made, and not even two huge errors, but three design errors that could prevent the torpedoes in WW2 doing their deed was done.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)



  • Second is the ENTAC article:

Quote - The missile was phased out between 1968 and 1969, being replaced with the more advanced BGM-71 TOW. It was used in the Vietnam War against fortified infantry positions, but not enemy tanks. It was fired by the 14th Infantry Regiment, amongst others. - Unquote

I checked out the reference. It is a war gamers website. And for what ever reason, war gamers, if they find out that a missile was in service with the US Army or Marines, it "must" have been used in Vietnam. Fact is, that the early wire guided missiles were not to conductive to jungle warfare. The TOW was about the best. The NV even gripped about how the SAGGER was such a disappointment. But if a antitank missile like the ENTAC had saw combat in South Vietnam, the US Army would have been showing if off till the media was sick of it.

This may take some running down. Something called the "International electronic countermeasures handbook", p. 129, also makes this claim about U.S. use of the ENTAC in Vietnam. It can be found in Google books online. Quote is "It was purchased by the US and used in Vietnam." Not saying the claim is true, but there appears to other sources for it besides the wargaming community. Also - "Used by American troops in Vietnam, the ENTAC remained in the U.S. Army inventory until 21 April 1969 when it was declared obsolete. It was replaced by the TOW missile system." - from here, a U.S. Army website. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WILSON ref: ENTAC - I would have a hard time finding it, but the ENTAC was meant for fast deployment to areas where a lot of tanks were going to be, and the US Army forces deployed would have no tanks. Same reason behind the SHERIDAN. Most ENTACs were kept in storage with the soldiers training over and over. I even knew a US Army Special Forces who was in Vietnam and he said in the states they even trained on "that little French ENTAC" in case they needed it on operations with a war with Russia. Also, Hughes Missiles told me that the TOW replaced the 106mm recoiless rifle and the DRAGON replaced the ENTAC.

GAWD! I may be wrong on this one. But I just don't think so. Been way to much bragging about the first time the US Army used a wire guided antitank missile in combat. So I deleted the reference. I did not delete the AS.12 reference. Just to much information I could not be sure of. I could have "maybe" bought the Santa Fe story, but I sure wasn't going to buy the the attempted murder of the Argie generals. <GRIN> I just thought by that time in history the Wessex had been retired and replaced by the Sea King and the Commando version of the Sea King. At most I only expected them to be on the County class destroyer in the ASW role. But I was it seems wrong on both counts.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Finally, I thought with these articles since they were French R&D and produced weapons, I would check out WJ Fr. Guess what. The English WP has far more and detailed information. Far, FAR, more. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been disappointed in general with the European Wikipedias. The content is very light; sometimes I wonder if there is a cultural aversion to "working for free" by donating one's knowledge to the internet. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WILSON Ref: French WP - What happened to that famous French pride! --Jackehammond (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My enduring memory of France was an impromptu visit to the city of Bitche on the 750th year of that town. They had a sound-and-light show projected onto the walls of the citadelle that evening, in which various groups mimed significant historical events in the town's history. When they got to 1944, a re-enactment group equipped with GI uniforms and jeeps depicted a motorized reconnaissance, and the projector displayed a large American 48-star flag on the walls of the citadelle. To a man, all of the French in the bleachers stood up, clapped, and cheered. So much for French anti-American attitudes. I recall feeling how sad it was that no American officials or news media were present to see such a heartfelt display of affection. I always remember that moment when I see the usual "France hates America" nonsense in the media or hear it being spoken. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson, I was being facetious! I was referring to the French pride in their culture, not those crude jokes we Americans make about May 1940 and tanks having only rear gear -- ie the Tonight Show in America with Jay Leno is notorious about it. When someone makes those jokes, I ask them if they know how many Frenchmen died in WW1 (when I give them the figure for between 17 and 35 they are shocked) and the fact that the US owes its independence to French money, war supplies and most important a French naval victory. I also ask them if they go to Virginia Beach (a popular resort area) to go to the Yorktown Battlefield and ask where the big white cross is in the woods and ask the Park Rangers what is buried beneath that cross. And while I can not speak a word of French today, I use to speak it better than English. My father was a company medic between 1952 and 1955 where the diplomatic/military cable came in from the US to mainland Europe (ie located just west of the D-Day landing areas). Finally, when they say that the French did not help us much sine 9/11 (they are mainly discussing Iraq) I said what about Afghanistan. I tell them the story of two French Army Special Forces officers in Afghanistan who were assigned to train the Afghan National Army in 2003 who guarded that huge dam that that US constructed for Afghanistan. For what ever reason, the US suddenly pulled out and told the Afghans to pull out. The Taliban came back though before they could start down the road and they attempted going cross country. The US Army said they would send a helicopter for those two French officers (ie one was even a colonel even). The French officers refused to leave the Afghan's they were training. They both died fighting with those Afghans. According to ARMY TIMES (ie which the US media ignored) a US Army Major was furious. He stated that if those two officers had been American privates, that they and all the Afghans would have been rescued. Wilson, I have my gripes about French policy (ie like they do ours), but the bravery of the French military is not one of them. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Jack. I was sure you weren't bashing the French, the story about Bitche is just one that I like to tell. I hadn't heard about the French officers in Afghanistan. Sorry situation. Anyone who judges the French forces by 1940 is going to get a huge surprise if they go to war with them. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a list of Navy AS.12 attacks on the Santa Fe:

  • Wasp XS539:
    • 1 400ft 4 miles - missed by 50yds
    • 2 400ft 3 miles - hit conning tower no explosion
  • Wasp XS527:
    • 1 1000ft 3.5-4 miles - Hit conning tower
    • 2 1000ft 2.5-3 miles - Missed by 30 yds
    • 3 100ft 3 miles - Rougue, went left
    • 4 100ft 2-2.5 miles - Hit conning tower, no explosion
    • 5 200ft 3 miles - Two hang-ups so it was jetisioned
    • 6 150ft 2 miles - Hit conning tower, large explosion

XS527 returned to Endurance and re-armed between sorties. Just a point about the Wessex it was used because it was a Royal Marines operation and XT484 was a suitable Commando helicopter that could take the AS.12. It launched two missiles whilst in the hover at 200ft about 3 miles north west of the town hall, the first missed the town hall and hit a nearby police station demolishing the roof, the second ended up in the water after the control wire snagged. Not sure why you think only one Wessex was used they had a few, well over 40 in use perhaps you are thinking about the Chinook, one of which survived the Atlantic Conveyor. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MILBORNEONE ref: AS.12 operations in the Falklands. Well I have to admit I am surprised I was wrong on this one. I had always till today, thought a submarine making a run for the open ocean (I got wrong information) would have given two helicopters them only a very short period to do the deed and not return. Only thing I can figure out, was the sail was holed so it couldn't dive and the captain was going to make a run to the open sea relying on the weather and putting in near the coast and patching the hole in the sail so he could dive. And the engagement ranges are astonishing. The further out you are with an AS.12 engagement at see the higher you have to launch, to keep from putting it into the water. I have a feeling both helicopter crews were worried about a Blowpipe unit being on board. And unlike the Wessex which did not have the stabilized sight on the roof, the Wasp helicopters did and should have been lot more accurate. Another reason, I would have thought they would have wanted to use some WASP from one of the task force against the Argie HQ.

But back to my reasoning for my thinking it was not the true story. I have a copy of "The Lessons of Modern War Vol.III" by A. Cordesman and he mentions the Santa Fe and what happened and the AS.12 (read the two pages closely). First is the actual battle with the Santa Fe on page 246, then is his description of the AS.12 on page 322. And Cordesman is in high demand by the Pentagon and paid very good money by them for consulting??? Then I have ($$$$$$$) WESTLAND AIRCRAFT, by Derek N. James, which is basically the Westland Bible as they gave him full co-operation and probably paid his meals and lodgings and secretary bill! Not two pages from that. First there is page 373 that describes the TF sent to South Georgia Island and the Wasp/AS.12 engagement. Note the ships and the Wasp from the ships engaged. Then there is the page from the section on the LYNX that was the replacement for the WASP, page 409 and note its description of the LYNX involvement in South Georgia and the Santa Fe. And this is from the same book by the same author, helped by the same firm that built the WASP and LYNX and WESSEX. Btw, the author and firm do not mention the WESSEX at all in the FALKLANDS???? Then there is ONE HUNDRED DAYS by P. Robinson which is a biography of the Admiral Woodward, the TF commander of the Falkland's Battle Group. And I won't scan that, but he says that only the old Country class HMS ANTRIM (ie many sources have refer to the ANTRIM as a small Amazon class) and the HMS ENDURANCE, and he gives credit to the ENDURANCE for doing the Santa Fe in. And then you have the Argie side of the story (ie the French on the Falklands War with the Super Etendard and the Exocet has the British madder than h*ll after the war claiming the French were only interested in exports no matter the blood cost of slanting the story). So it gets confusing as heck.

I wish someone would write complete history of the Falkland's and have someone sitting their that understands weapons (ie not me for sure), naval tactics, logistics, naval ships, etc. and maybe get the whole story straight. For example, I do not believe that the new Lynx was set up to fire the AS.12 although one source stated it was. And the Antrim was the biggest of the four warships sent to South Georgia (why Woodward sent the HMS BRILLIANT with its high tech Sea Wolf missile system designed to take out anti-shipping missiles to South Georgia Island is beyond my pay grade) and was the only one designed to operate the larger Wessex helicopter, which according the WP article on the Santa Fe (ie I think a lot of Argentine's have edited that article in the past) was basically a done for submarine unless it could get back to a large naval base after the Wessex attack. And note the article states that THREE not two helicopters attacked the Santa Fe (ie and all Wasps and not the one Lynx on the Brilliant). Now that would make a lot more sense and explain 9 AS.12s fired in the engagement. It is lucky for the crew that something did not work right, or with the one exception the crew would have all dyed. And nothing is said about a AS torpedo keeping it from diving. It was that Wessex ASW helicopter attack. The Antrim ASW officer knew not to send it out with ASW torpedoes, because of the heavy weather in the South Atlantic, the nose is just so much, they have a hard time homing, unless the sub goes deep. Also, it states that the WASP fired on the Santa Fe with its machine gun????? As for the number of Wessex helicopters at the Falklands. "40" really surprised me. They were an old helicopter that came into service in the early 1960s. The RN was never to happy with the ASW/GP WESSEX-3 due to its range/endurance. The RN and the Royal Marines were ok with the WESSEX-5 as commando helicopter, but it was old as beans to. But I looked it up and it was in service till 1987 (ie sort of like the USMC Sea Knight CH-43 today). But you hardly see any photos of it in the Falkland's War???? And without a roof stabilized sight firing the AS.12 at long ranges is "IFFY".

I have learned from the Falkland's War, that I know only one item for sure. During the Falkland's War in a battle for some mountain around the area, involving the Royal Marine Commandos the MILAN wire guided antitank missile was used to take out Argie .50 caliber bunkers (ie unlike the older one, all the gunner had to do was track the target and the missile would go to the sights cross hairs). I went to a US Army association convention in DC. I came across two Royal Marine's standing at the Euromissile MILAN booth. I joked with them about Euromissile only having the money to bring one MILAN crew involved at the Falkland's. They pointed at themselves, and said you are looking at the only MILAN crew the RM had at that battle! They were the two that took out all those bunkers, just aiming on the flash of the .50 calibers firing. The rest were taken out the old fashion way with 84mm recoiless rifles. So if anyone ask me about the Falkland's that is the only thing I am putting my hand on the bible about. <GRIN> Well, enough said. I was lucky I did not delete that part of the article on the AS.12, or I would have been in hot water again, which lately I have stayed out of. <GRIN> And thanks for hunting up the references. But if you can read the four pages I scanned. You can see why to much information (ie even by good researchers) have "muddied" the waters about the Falkland's War.--Jackehammond (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)



  • Careful there with your words, Jack... don't want them Spanish speaking Argies to go nuts over some cited phrases and statement they might perceived as insulting towards them or their country. A good look at some of those comments by them over at Youtube reveals of their delusion by them and their supporters (mostly from the Latin-speaking world, I gathered). BTW, you might want to list down (state it down on your user page instead of here on your discussion page) which article page you are currently working on right now so that volks like me and Wil can give you a hand. Jawohl~! --Dave 1185 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Dave I know. When I was a Sysop back in the 1980s and 1990s, any times there was a discussion of the Falkland's I always had to step in and make them go back to their corners. As to what article I am working on, how should I list it. Can you give me a User Page I can go to to see an example. FYI, I work on a lot of article in a minor way. Usually I am working on one article and I check the links or look up similar articles, and they are in error. Sort of like that Domino trick you see. <GRIN> But the major article Wilson and I are trying to get right is the HOT antitank missile. It is a mess with a lot errors and hearsay. I created a sandbox User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT. The template for a new HOT article is on the USER. The DISCUSSION is where we have put together all the articles and other info. The one that is on the back burn is the DURANDAL antirunway weapon which also is a mess. I got a sandbox titled User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-DURANDAL. My question I have, is that I have a lot of information on the antirunway weapon that the French Air Force adopted (ie French firm design and build the DURANDAL but did not go operational with it) the BAT 100. It was the first on in history ever used. I have a lot of info on it. But the firm that developed the BAT 100 developed a sister to it called the BAP 120 as anti-vehicle weapon. They look a like and are mounted a like. Can I combine them in one article or should I have separate articles????? --Jackehammond (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)




Mindless Trivia Section of Jackehammond Talk Page - You have been warned!!!--




Folks, This is just mindless trivia, but I can not figure out why this Chinese defense firm could just not have went and hired someone off the street in Hong Kong for the voice to this video for a new internal security vehicle????--Jackehammond (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)



  • IF you think that is funny, you should have seen the time I posted something here about wrong spelling on the signages in China, one of them reads: "STATE LAND, NO DUMPLING!" when it should have been "STATE LAND, NO DUMPING!". Well, at least it's a clear and straight forward mistake when you compare that to what happens over on the Indian sub-continent where English is bastardized relentlessly on a daily basis, talk centers are the biggest culprit of them all. --Dave 1185 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Dave, I live on the continent of Europe and cannot tell you how many times I've winced at advertisement copy in western Europe because of the faulty use of the English language. Those firms should just pay me to keep it straight for them <g> Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks,

Below is an announcement by DoD on the last day of December 2009 so they would miss the news cycle. And in the title of this message I meant IRAN, not IRAQ. I know there are defense firms that want the business and there Congress members in their district can not stand the idea of looking at the future. But this contract is putting future US soldiers lives on the line. And Iraq does not need this modern of a tank and can not operate it, unless they get outside help after we leave. This is mistake many will remember. And the US will probably never get paid for it. According to ARMY TIMES the military sales division that extends credit had to certify that Iraq would most likely pay the bill, and were under pressure to say Yes. Note the completion date, is the last day that US forces have to leave Iraq.

Jack E. Hammond


The U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), a contract worth $14 million to purchase long-lead materials for the production of 140 M1A1 SA (Situational Awareness) tanks for the Iraq program. The SA enhancements to the M1A1 for Iraq include a second-generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) thermal sight, a driver’s vision-enhancer thermal viewer and Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK) improvements, which provide better crew protection in urban warfare environments. In addition, engines developed through the Army’s Total Integrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) program will be installed and pulse-jet filter cleaning systems added to improve performance while reducing maintenance requirements and costs. Work will be performed in Lima, Ohio; Scranton, Pa.; Anniston, Ala.; and Tallahassee, Fla. The completion date for the contract is May 31, 2011. 31 December 2009

Well, the communists claimed that the capitalists would sell them the rope with which to hang them. Seems like the capitalists haven't learned much from the twentieth century. Frankly, I find the sale of advanced weapons to any third world or other countries dominated by tribal rivalries to be rank stupidity. I'm not particularly thrilled with other countries in the ME having M1 tanks (or advanced fighter aircraft) either. People talk a lot about how much the Russians made by selling Kalashnikovs, but in truth the West wasn't any better; we just sold different toys. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)



Wilson check the bottom of the HOT sandbox on HOT numbers and cost.--Jackehammond (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, check, I removed the cost statement from the sandbox article since I can find no sources at all on per-unit cost. I'm not sure that cost as a measure is very important since countries make all kinds of deals when it comes to armament exports. The sandbox article is slowly starting to shape up but it doesn't have much meat. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Jack, you may find this an interesting link - some information on the Italian rockets in the "Air Force" section. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThanks, I appreciate it. But besides the rockets (the 81mm was very interesting) was the fact they are still making 57mm RCL round! I thought only Brazil still had that weapon and made ordnance for it. Btw, I think some cabal on WP is out to drive poo Dave nuts on the SPIKE article. I mean every time you turn around they are adding Mexico. If Mexico had the weapons shown on WP it would be more powerful than any nation except the US it seems. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another nice link, you may know of this, Air Combat Information Group

French BAP 100 and BAP 120 article stub

Folks, I added information to the User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-BAP100 talk page. I have to go and hunt FLIGHT archives again. I spotted the article on the French Jaguar attack on the Libyan airfield in Chad and forgot to mark it. Question is do, I put the BAP 100 and BAT 120 on the same article or delink them. If someone could put a stub on it (on the user page of the sandbox please) I will put some meat on it.--Jackehammond (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, I have not been on AICG in years. They have certainly grown. Also, one of their articles is about that French attack on the Libyan airfield in CHAD. That color photo of the Jaguar fitted with the BAP 100 is the one I have been hunting for. And of course it was fourth from last file in the pile. Can we use AICG as a source or is it one of those on the reliable source-NOT list? --Jackehammond (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have used it in the sandbox HOT article. I don't see why they would be unreliable. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Wilson That was the way I felt. But I wanted to make sure that was the way the WP community feels. I have noticed they accept print as reliable far more than they do electronic-internet. If AICG was not acceptable, I was going to have to dive back into that FLIGHT archive and find that article again.--Jackehammond (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson, Why don't we wander over to the Talk:F-35 Lightning II and put our 2 cents in. I can guarantee that MilborneOne, would just love us for it - NOT! <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

HOT sandbox article

Jack, I'm pretty much done adding material to User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-HOT. Unless you want to work on the article in the sandbox, we can go prime-time with it as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson It really looks good. But could you give me about two days to add some stuff before you eliminate the old one and replace it. Also, in antitank missiles, the wires (for what ever reason their are two) are used to send commands. But the guidance is either MCLOS or SACLOS. I hope you don't mind if I add that. In addition the missile is steered through Thrust Vector Control of the sustainer motor by four vanes located around the nozzle. I am going to try and track down some reference to the Iraqis who first used the HOT in combat during the Iraq-Iran War. Last, I would like to thank you for your hard work on this article. It was a mess when I saw it.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I'll hold off moving the HOT article until you indicate you are done with it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I finished the text part. I have a lot of work to do on photos. I wish I had just one good cut-away of the missile though. Also, according to Euromissiles financial report of 1983 the HOT started production in 1976, not 1977 as other publications have reported.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonI am finished with the Sandbox-HOT article. I fiddled for two hours with the helicopter images. There are five listed but only three show. I tried everything I could think of. But the bottom two will not show. Moved the ex image box all over the place. I even took out top two, thinking there was a block on over so many external images. No Go even then. And I am usually pretty good at this. In the 1980s with CPM and WordStar you had to be a pretty good amateur debugger to survive. So I guess it is ready to be posted out in the real world.--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonThanks for the clean up on the M141 article. Very much appreciated.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Wilson Army Guide for what ever reason is blocked. But do a google with HOT. Gives some good info on users and shows a photo of that one round launcher mounted on a Land Rover used by Morocco. If the source is correct the HOT has seen a lot of combat!--Jackehammond (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


WilsonI have big bottle of spicy mustard in my fridge. The reason is crow taste some what eatable with a lot of it poured on. An I have used the whole bottle. I have been searching through old IDRs to find a reference on the HOT in Iraq. I came across something else though. It seems the US Army did evaluate the AS.11 in Vietnam in September of 1965 when they sent 12 modified UH-1B fitted with a stabilized sight. First the AS.12 in the Falklands now this!!!! I have to go back to the SS.11 article and undo that delete later today. #%#*%%@! --Jackehammond (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I'd like to modify the sandbox article. The intro paragraphs are too long. Object of editing will be to keep all of the information, but to move the details of design and function further down in the article. Does that sound good to you? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, I was wondering about that. Sound great.--Jackehammond (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Saw how you rearranged the HOT article in the sandbox. It looks great. Don't matter if it is in the sandbox or a regular HOT article I can fiddle with it to try and get those other two ex. image photos for helicopters to pop up. Going to try and shorten the names to the eight letter primary and three letter extension of the old DOS rules. Something gotta give. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


SNEB done?

A Matra Type 155 SNEB rocket launcher pod with two red-tipped 68mm dummy rocket projectiles.

How'd you like my latest addition to the article? Took the snapshot before I went for my long anticipated vacation. *grin* --Dave 1185 19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

DaveThat is one good photo. But I always thought the Singapore Air Force were 70mm/2.75 inch fans???--Jackehammond (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DaveBtw, You are one of the guardians of the SPIKE article, the listing of comparable systems shows the SRAW and that Russian missile. Neither are comparable, having totally different guidance systems and ranges.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh... we use quite a few rockets in-service (including SURA R80, SNEB, Mk40 FFAR, CRV70, Hydra 70), the SNEB was inherited from Hawker Hunters (which shared the same jet engine with the old A-4S Skyhawks before they were upgraded to the A-4SU Super Skyhawk standard with the installation of GE F404 turbofan), Which also simplified logistics since we were in FPDA (Five Power Defence Arrangements) with Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Malaysia... when RAF, RAAF and RNZAF all uses SNEBs. There are a lot of considerations whenever the RSAF starts to procure armaments, as evident by Eurofighter Typhoon a few years back... I must say that the plane was as advertised by BAe and we could have gotten another superb force-mutiplier (this particular crew chief was impressed!) had it not been for some sticky issues with the production airframes (mostly with the software, I gathered). Oh well... look at what MINDEF has decided on now, F-15SG Strike Eagle~! I wouldn't have dreamt of that when I was still serving... time changes, I guess. As for Spike, change them if you will, I'm alright with that as long it doesn't mess up the user countries and figures procured (often with no cites/references to back up their claims by them anonymous IP editors). --Dave 1185 10:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Swingfire

Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page, I recognised your name from armyrecognition.com, I've been lurking there for many moons :) Riddley (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am working on the HOT article now. I will try and get to the SWINGFIRE as soon as possible. The two Belgium owners of ARMY RECONN are still trying. They just came back from China. They got pretty upset with WP over the fact their database listed MEXICO as having the JAVELIN (ie a few other publications listed it to, based on all things the MILAN in an Mexican Independence parade). They got a nasty email about being unreliable and spamming and have stayed mad ever since at WP. So much for my hope they would make a few of their photos they take public domain. <GRIN> I hope they make it, but the defense convention photo market is pretty stiff. And try as they might they can't find a US distributor. I have taken precautions and copied my articles to my computer just in case they fold though. Finally, if you need anything let me know. I have a ton of photos and public relation material from the 1980s and 1990s. But I retired out of doing defense research for magazines in 2001.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese HJ8 article - Jack's been a very bad boy! <GRIN>

Folks, if you think the Latins can get upset over the Eurofighter design, the one item that get's the Chinese upset is claims that many (actually most) of their weapons are either copies or modifications of Western and Russian weapon systems. I mean they get irate. Well, I was adding the Chinese Red Arrow 8 HJ-8 to the list of comparable systems for the HOT article Wilson and I have been shaping up in a sandbox. I mean according to the HJ-8 article is is the supreme example of Chinese weapon's engineering and better than anything in its class. Well the problem is the HJ-8 is a copy-combination (ie what is politely called "reverse engineering) of three antitank missile designs: The US TOW, the Fr/Ger MILAN and the UK Swingfire. Basically examples of these three designs were "loaned" China by un-named (Egypt is one) nations. I have added a sentence on this subject in the DESIGN section of the HJ-8 article. I am doing it mainly to make it clear that the obvious is known. Now I am waiting to see how fast it is deleted. I probably won't reinstate it though. It is just not that important. But I thought that it had to be stated at least once. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I just looked that HJ-8 article over some more. The article states that the HJ-8 and the license made version in Pakistan has a hit ratio of 98% and a penetration of +1400mm. US and French missile engineers need to go study under Chinese missile engineers. No wonder it has been an export success in Asian and Latin American nations. With figures like that, the US Army and Marines need to chuck the TOW and help the Pakistan economy!!!!! <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, here is a different Paki assessment on the penetration (and hit probability) of the Red Arrow. Interestingly, it matches the reported penetration of the Swingfire. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a surprise that the Chinese Communist Party are turning into Nationalist these days with such dubious & exaggerated claims/edits in HJ-8, things sure has come a full circle after 1949. Btw, I've amended and added the much required specification figures along with the citation/reference into the article page. --Dave 1185 08:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the claims for the range of the 30-mm cannon in the SW-1 turret as they were very likely exaggerated. Dave, you may want to check your web citation, it looks like it got "doubled" as in citationcitation. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DaveI doubt the changes will stick. They will be undone. But at least we can irk them some. <GRIN> Btw, I don't have a citation, but on MilitaryPhotos-net I saw a photo during arms forces day of the HJ-8 parading with the Bolivian Army. --Jackehammond (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackehammond/Archive_2&oldid=1143540844"