Jump to content

User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Wasp 58 article

Wilson can you take a look at the Wasp 58 stub I started. I have the photos for the ex. image that Luchaire sent me. I noticed though after posting the stub, that the Nexter article I brought it over from, was almost a word by word from JIW 1996. I word smith it to avoid the copy right problem. But it is still a little rough. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks. I thought on the Nexter article it was just a move from a French article then I checked my JIW and saw that it was copied from that source word for word. Could have gotten in BIG trouble if I hadn't caught it. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson I didn't think that ole Dave could become entangled in worst cat fight than that between the Pakistanis and Indians, but it seems he found it with the Egyptian Copts vs the other Egyptians in general. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Not my cup of tea actually, I was just doing my part protecting WP from ball-less vandals hiding behind them veil of anonymous IP addresses. Like I've said before, the middle-east was never my forte but middle-night... that's another story. *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave You know I read some where, where someone said, that all good writers are either a good editor or they know a good editor. I can guarantee you 100% that I am not a good editor. But, Wilson, is. He has solutions I would never think of. On the M72 LAW article I found a USN photo of the first prototype LAW and got it in WP Commons - which I thought would be the hard part and it wasn't -- and tried posting it in the M72 article. I worked on it for 3 hours trying to find the right fit so it was right without overwhelming the page. At last I gave up and asked Wilson to take a crack at it. Bingo! He got it right.--Jackehammond (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody Am I required to notify anyone if I find an article which is copying word for word a copyrighted article or book?--Jackehammond (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, report it on Buckshot06's talk page: (talk) He'll whack it. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of copyright violations, I have made more edits to the Wasp 58 article. I saw the original in Jane's today and several sentences were direct copies. Not sure where that text came from, but it is tainted. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson You probably noticed that I was trying to hide its' origins, but I was pretty dirty about doing it. You got it right. No reason for me to fiddle with it any more. Thanks. Also, I got my information on the Wasp 58 from Luchaire in the late 1980s. I got the texts for the original article from the Nexter article not realizing it was copied. All I wanted to do was put my photos with a separate article. Then I discovered where they got the text that I copied to the Wasp 58 article. I have already removed it from the Nexter article. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes? --Jackehammond (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, not mine certainly. In cases like this, I'll often write just a single paragraph based on the information I have to ensure I avoid copyright issues until I can get a better version of the article out. Nothing wrong with stubs, and in the case of some of the systems we're describing, we may not be able to find much more. Thanks for the correction on the development date of the Wasp 58 -- the early 1990's was a WAG of mine based on when it was and wasn't described in various issues of Jane's Infantry Weapons. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

XM-70 recoiless howitzer??

Folks, I am think about putting up a stub on the subject of the XM-70 115 light howitzer. It was a brilliant idea that failed totally. Basically it fired the shell from a revolver magazine in the same fashion as the 105mm and 106mm recoiless rifles then had a rocket assist. I got a photo, but all I can find is from Popular Mechanics 1960 and Popular Science 1960. Really is not that important an article, but it has gotten my curiosity up. The Marines were stubborn when they should have adopted the Italian 105mm pack howitzer like the rest of NATO.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I came over here to say thanks for the warning message to User:Dj8work about Eurofighter copyright issue. On this matter, you might want to start a sandbox (subpage) on your user space, like User:Jackehammond/XM-70 115 light howitzer to work on it. When you are satifsied with it use the move button to move it to main article space, like XM-70 115 light howitzer. I'l lwatch this page in case you have questions. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple rocket launching systems

Wilson Here is a French WP article translated that is interesting, including the photos. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, the English language version is Katyusha rocket launcher. Great Soviet weapon -- heavy fire and relatively inexpensive to produce. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Yes it is a good article. Reason it is important, is this is the system that got the idea of modern MLR systems started. True story about Stalin. He came in June 1941 to see the first units of the new Katyusha fired. The Russian soldiers brought the rocket crates over to be unpacked so they could fit the fins to. When they opened the crates they discovered they contained 130mm artillery cannon shells and not 130mm rocket shells. All the officers with Stalin were sh*ting their pants! Stalin just smiled and said from now on give the new system the designation 132mm and in front of the officers told the chief of the secret police not to get involved. I think that bunch of officers were washing their under wear for weeks.<GRIN> The story was told by a high ranking defecting Red Army officer in the GRU in a famous book titled INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY (page 202) who still has a bounty on his head even though the USSR collapsed. And I will guess that you or anyone reading this message will never guess in a million years why the Red Army kept huge units of towed antitank cannons. I would never have thought of it. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to read more about "who was first" -- the Germans seemed to have a 10-cm Nebelwerfer in 1934 but I'm not sure if it launched HE projectiles or not. Never heard the tale about the towed AT guns, but one reason they'd be useful is a small to zero thermal signature for ambush purposes. The 100-mm pieces also doubled as towed artillery. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

M72 article and M14

Wilson the early photo of the soldier firing the M72 LAW has an M1 slung over his shoulder. The M14 had the gas tap tube way back and exposed while the M1 has it located about an inch from the end of the muzzle. The M14 also has a fixed "bird cage" flash suppressor on the end of the barrels muzzle. My father assigned to Korea in 1962 for a year (at that time Korea was a hardship tour) and his unit had just been issued the new M14. My father was a medic, but the NK did not respect the Red Cross so he got trained on the small arms like everyone else in the company, but was issued the older M2 Carbine which was smaller and lighter. His company did night patrols on the DMZ for infiltrators. On the first patrol with the M14 the officer in charge immediately took them back to base and turned in the M14s and reissued the M1s and went back on patrol. It seems the first M14s made a lot of clanking and clicking when soldiers carried them. And at night that could get you killed. All of the new M14s in Korea got shipped back to the US to be modified. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops -- thought the M1 was only in NG and Reserve use by the time of that photograph. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Could you look at the editing I did on Shaped charge. The one adding the HEAT link I think is good enough, but not so sure on the Tandem Warheads addition. Thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Observations on WP Behavior

Dave When I worked for Compuserve in the ancient days of 1200 and 2400 baud, 64K memory and 10 meg was considered a monster hard drive who only a fool would want, we had a list a lot like that. But the one item missing from the WP list is on "true believers". They were main problem on Compuserve. Vandals weren't a problem, because Compuserve cost $35 dollars a month on a credit card each month. A WP "block" was called a "lock out" on Compuserve. And actually they were very rare. The one item I don't agree with though is #9 Single Topic Editors. That is what I am. Because the topic of defense and weapons it is what I know about and have studied and at one time wrote about for years. Sorry. But all I know is that when I first came to WP, it seemed I accidentally with out knowing it broke every WP rule there was. I really appreciate MilborneOne, Jonothan, Wilson and yourself holding off with the rope. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No worries, Jack. Nothing to do with us, we improve articles, period. SPA only applies to those new accounts hell bent on creating hoaxes, nonsensical edits, attacking other editors, issuing legal threats and everything to prove their point. You, however, were gracious to admit your mistake when informed by me and took it on yourself to engage me in a dialogue when requested to, that's what make you different from those young punks when out of grass. *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave I feel sorry for the administrators today. There is big trouble coming. The Paks and the Indies are getting themselves worked up big time on WP:En for various reasons. I really worry about that group on WP. For what ever reason, they think they can win and that there historical view point is proven right (the True Believers I mentioned) if it is in an article on WP:En. Don't know, why. But it is just that way. I look to see a lot of articles dealing with those dispute having to be "protected" like the one on Islam. But you know how you can tell the administrators are trying to be neutral: Both sides accuse the administrators of being pro-the-other-side. And that link you had me read is right: It is like driving by a car wreak. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Read "Bugles and Tigers" if you do you will understand the posting

what? ? ? (USMCMIDN (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Sir, When the US got involved in Afghanistan, the British (and myself when I worked for Compuserve) advised every US military officer they came in contact with to read that book. Most ignored that advise and made a lot of assumptions about Afghanistan and the culture of the people. A lot of heartache could have been avoided. Now it is listed as the top ten book to read on "Company Commanders" a closed board for US Army company commanders returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.--Jackehammond (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

why are you telling me this? (not to be rude) I looked over this book and really found nothing the USMC has not already told me... Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by USMCMIDN (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Sorry, I bothered you. It was not important and I should not have posted the message. Apologizes.--Jackehammond (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

no worries I thought you thought by me reading the book it would make me a better officer or something... NP (USMCMIDN (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

High-Low System article posted

Folks, for better or worst, I got tired of fiddling with it, and post it.--Jackehammond (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks for the clean up. Much appreciated. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson We got a "B" on the article from what ever powers that be, and what ever a "B" means.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Dave's comment as it would be unusual for a human "IP editor" to assign quality ratings to articles. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wilson Do you know how you make redirects to an article of various terms or names used for the main item in the article. I want to redirect High-Low System the various other names used for it so when someone does a search they will find that article. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Example - the "article" XVI Corps (Germany) is a redirect page that points to the main article using this syntax: #REDIRECT [[XVI Army Corps (Germany)]]
(that is, it points to XVI Army Corps (Germany), which is where the real article is. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Colt Mk 12 cannon

Could use your help on the article, just curious if indeed it was ever used to armed the LTV A-7 Corsair II used by the USN? Several (conflicting?) source states that it was armed with the M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon instead, which isn't wrong because they were found in the USAF version. Regards. :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave The first A-7s with the USN were armed with two Colt Mk-12 20mm cannons. The later USAF A-7s were armed with the 20mm GE Vulcan cannon. While they look a like the USN and USAF versions are very different internally. The USAF versions have more powerful engines, the Vulcan cannon, boom refueling, and more armour and fuel cell protection. The reason is the USAF versions did not have all the heavy stuff (landing gear, wing strengthening, etc) that an aircraft that is doing a landing on a carrier has to have.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

JALW Issue 35 mentions A-7 Corsairs still carrying the Mk 11 20mm cannon; apparently 830 systems were delivered between 1965 and October 1967. This also includes Mk 4 pods that contain dual Mk 11 Mod 5 20mm cannon. Pages 614 and 820, dated March 1999. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Also this, mentioning The US Navy Corsair II’s had two 20 mm Colt Mk 12 cannon with 250 rounds per gun but later this was changed to a single 20 mm M61 Vulcan weapon Gatling gun with 1,030 rounds of ammunition. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Looked it up. I never new the US Navy had switched, but it makes sense with the F-18 coming on line with the same cannon (ie none of the USN F-4s had the cannon like the USAF F-4s WHY???). The USN A-7s with the Vulcan started with the A-7E version. Guess there attitude was that the USAF had paid for the cost of the conversion, so why not take advantage of it. Also, I think the USN wished they had kept some A-7s in their reserve units. They are eating up the airframe hours of their F/A-18s something fierce and have even had to trade them out for the older A/F-18Cs from reserve units for duty over Afghanistan. Plus, the A/F-18s are really fuel hoggs and require a lot of tanker support. The A-7 is known for being one of the most efficient range to payload attack jets the USN has ever had. Also, the twin Mk 4 pods has set up based on a German design. When one cannon fires, it cocks the cannon next to it and visa verse. And thanks for the update.--Jackehammond (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • That makes much more sense now, thanks Jack. BTW, I found an interesting bit of information (email me!) that seem to be pointing towards Pakistan being the middleman for Iran's RBS-70, and not as the originally stated - Singapore. (Note to self: we have been vindicated~!) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In vindicatus veritas Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Exocet article and Egypt user

Dave The new editing of the Exocet article shows some things I have looked up that do jive with what was posted. Could be wrong, but Egypt does not have the Sea King and the Mirage 5s are listed as the ground attack version. May be that the Egyptian AF has bought the air launched AM39 for the Mirage 2000 which is a muli-role aircraft. But for sure Egypt does have the MM38 (and most likely some MM40s) because they have bought German missile boats that were originally armed with those weapons. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Fret not, I'll make the necessary adjustments & update to that section. *grin* IMO, M2000 could have the AM39 (or that the Harpoon for their F-16) but the Egyptian Navy article doesn't state which launching platform(s) it might be carried on. Which, to me, smells of unsourced claims! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (PS:Incidentally, the guy who made the Egyptian entry on AM39 Exocet claims to be an ex-officer in the Egyptian Army!)
  • Jack, don't you hate it when people don't know how to categorize things properly? I finally got it referenced under: Jackson, Paul. "Mirage III/5/50 Variant Briefing: Part 3: The Operators". World Air Power Journal Volume 16, Spring 1994. London:Aerospace Publishing. ISBN 1 874023 36 0. pp. 90—119 (page 98 to be exact). The 54× radar-equipped Mirage 5SDEs ordered for the Egyptian Air Force was indeed equipped with the AM39 (40 missiles delivered). Only problem now is, where does the Sea King fit into the picture? Let me know if you get it before I do, yeah? Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Thanks. What I don't understand is the Sea King. The Egyptian Air Force (I think) has the Commando version of the Sea King (it is a troop carrying helicopter with fixed landing gear), but I can find no reference for the Egyptian Navy operating the Sea King. If they do have the naval version of the Sea King, then it would be easy to make the interface between the surface search radar and the AM39 electronics. Like Peru I believe has. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DaveAfraid you will have to undo that. The AM38 was just an experiment of a conversion of the MM38 (ship and land launched) for helicopter launch. Only seven were converted. The AM39 is for all air-launch and is the missile used for the AS39 submarine launch. One of the major differences between the MM39 and the AM39 is not only the wings for near super sonic transport, but a new light weight rocket exhaust that reduces weight. I have a reference on the Exocet article on the AM38 experiment, but I guess I should also make a note and reference on the AM39 differences from the older MM38 (ie it is in World Naval Weapon Systems 1991/92). While I don't have a reference, I have a feeling the Egyptian naval Sea Kings have the AM39. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Failure of the Argentine submarine torpedoes - Falklands War

Wilson and Dave The following is a note I sent someone on his talk page about the failure of the Argentine torpedoes of the one modern submarine that did operate off the islands.

Sir, if you have the time, check my entry on the ARA San Luis. You will be dumbfounded as to why the torpedoes failed as I was when I read that article back in 1993 on the report to the German Navy which was included. It has to go down in naval history along with the USN torpedo failures against the Japanese during the first two years of the war -- ie not only was the magnetic fuses failures, but the depth keeping was, and even when set to impact, they discovered that the impact pistols (firing pins) were made of material to soft and they bent!!! --Jackehammond (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Jack, while on this topic of Falklands War, I think you might want to read up on HMS Glamorgan (D19) and its relevant reference book for details on the Exocet caused fire. Back to ARA San Luis, somethings always happen (no matter where you are in the world, there's always an idiot beside us) because some overzealous chaps are always messing things up (reversed wiring on them torpedoes? wow... no wonder the gyros went wandering into the abyss!). *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)



Dave Murphy's Law is "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and at the worst possible time." Murphy's Law of War is "If anything can go wrong it will. If nothing can go wrong, something still will go wrong and at the absolute worst possible time." <GRIN> Btw, I found a BIG article on Singapore armed forces and defence industry, in a 1983 issue of IDR. You want me to scan it for you? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave I will take care of the Glamorgan hit by the Exocet. Seems this discussion of the AS12 and the Exocet and the Falklands War could all be taken and made into a book. But for the life of me, I can not figure out why it seems every British warship commander did not put their chaff launchers on full auto, instead of the semi-auto mode (with full auto they will fire if there is an electronic signature from an incoming ASM radar and can only be stopped by hitting a big red button and with semi-auto a warning is given that an antishipping missile is coming in and you hit that same button to fire off the chaff). The same thing happened with the USS Stark when it was hit -- ie the crew was discussing whether they should hit the chaff button, and it would not have mattered as the safety pins were still installed!!!! And why that captain was not court martialed is beyond me. The British Navy had the right attitude in the old days: Anything bad happens, they let a court martial sort it out, and some British captains even "demanded" a court martial. And one US Navy officer told me, he could not figure out why the British did not construct hundreds of radar decoys out of old 55 gallon barrels, that are weighted at the bottom with a pole welded on the side with two pieces of flat tin, inserted cross ways (like you interlock boards) to forum a massive radar cross section. And have them floating all over the place around San Carlos bay. Or even fitted one to their ships motor boats and towed them behind the warship??? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, shit happens... lest you never heard of this, the British had another decoying method but it has to do with using a Sea King helicopter flying some distance from the nearest RN ship and towing an object some 15 meters above the ocean surface to draw the Exocet away (apparently, this had something to do with the Exocet's radar altimeter!). According to some pilots who did flew such mission, "it was scary!". --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

High explosive anti-tank warhead, referencing.

Hi, you recently made an informative edit to High explosive anti-tank warhead. I wonder if you are able to provide a reference for it - or even better, provide some supporting references for the article in general, it is currently woefully under-referenced. (Hohum @) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jack

If you want to get a look in wikibooks.it, using Google translator you could get 20 MB of stuff. Just see that:[1].--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SPIKE today and Singapore Defence 1983

Dave The following Arie Egozi "Rafael Expands Spike Family" Military Technology #3/2010 Monch Publishing Group page 92 and page 93. Note page 93 and the Spike-ER is being fired from the same tripod as the TOW. Since you are the guardian of the purity of the Spike I will let you take care of the updating. But when I find that article that says that Rafael copied Hughes AAWS-M candidate <GRIN>

Next is IDR #11/1983 H.M.F Howarth "Singapore's Armed Forces and Defense<sic> Industry" Page 1565, Page 1566, Page 1567, Page 1568, Page 1569, Page 1570, Page 1571 and Page 1572. Note the photo on page 1567 that is of particular interest to both of us. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah... those photos sure bring back a lot of memories... *sniffle* Where were we again? Oh, Spike... I'll see what I can do but as for the photo of that V-200 with the RBS-70 SAM, you might want to see the correct figure of 320 total is listed by me on the page of Cadillac Gage Commando. Wonder why IDR got the figures slightly off? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

High explosive anti-tank warhead

Jack, you may want to look at your edit about the TOW Cobras not being in Vietnam again. The article doesn't say the Cobras were firing TOW missiles, they were firing 2.75" rockets with HEAT warheads -- as it is, the edit does not flow with the rest of the paragraph now. Here is a reference. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Thanks for the heads up. You have to admit it seems like the TOW and Cobra were just put in a blender. First they are talking about the pilots that used the TOW then they suddenly switch to the Cobra. Looks like I will have re-visit that article along with the Exocet and that dang British destroyer <GRIN> JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Glide bomb and Fritz-X

Folks, On the Glide bomb there feature photo and about half the article deals with the Fritz-X. Maybe I got it wrong, but I don't think the Fritz-X is a glide bomb. The so called "wings" at mid point are put their because the rear tail surfaces are converted for control so they have to have additional stabilization. Similar to the Israeli Python and French Magic air to air missiles. Or the US Sparrow. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Glide bombs with HEAT warheads

Sir, just curious, what glide bomb(s) uses a HEAT warhead? JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The GBU-44/B Viper Strike, for one, (From the article, emphasis added):

Length: 0.9 m (36 in). [3]
Weight: 20 kg (42 lb).
Diameter: 14 cm (5.5 in).
Wingspan: 0.9 m (36 in).
Glide ratio: 10:1 [3]
Guidance: GPS-midcourse/terminal laser homing.[4][5]
Accuracy: < 1 m CEP.
Warhead: 1.05 kg (2.3 lb) (HEAT). [3]

A similar weapon is to be used on a new "mini gunship", French built, for use by US. Marine aviation in ground support. That was where I picked up the thread leading to my edit, but do not have the specific article at hand.

Best wishes, - Leonard G. (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)



Leonard Thanks for the reply. I knew about the Viper Strike, but I think I read somewhere that it was a programmable blast-frag warhead that replaced the HEAT warhead. How they do it I don't have a clue, but some how they direct the blast downward. HEAT warheads, true direct a copper cone forward, but they still have considerable blast effects to the sides. Also, I think the Fritz-X is more in the class of a guided-bomb and not a glide bomb. Those four mid-body fins have the same effect as the eight on the JAVELIN which aids in maneuver (I was told by the Texas Instrument engineer in the mid 1980s that without those mid-body fins, the missile would have a hard time pitching over, and they had even added nose-strakes to help). Again, thanks for the reply.
But to be honest you were right. I had missed the BAT, which the Viper-Strike was developed from. And the BAT does have a HEAT warhead (ie located in the rear of the missile body I believe).
As to the USMC mini-Gunship, it is going to be modular, with one of the external fuel cells on their KC-130 tankers replaced with a unit that has a combination cannon and Hellfires. Also, there were plans for a gunship version of the twin engine C-27J, but I think is in limbo now.
Jack E. Hammond

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackehammond/Archive_5&oldid=1143541068"