User talk:Riddley/2012-03-07
|
Archives
2007-01-24 | 2007-06-11 | 2008-05-03 | 2012-03-07 | 2015-09-04 | 2017-10-14 | 2020-05-16 |
|---|
Contact ?
editI am new to Wikipedia and I have no idea how to add content to articles. I read the page on the NULKA system and saw there was no picture. You are one of the people who edited the article and are an expert on various weapons systems. I was on the FFG-41 USS Mc Clusky today and took a photograph of the NULKA. I would like to add it to the page but I do not know how. Could you tell me how to contact you and walk me through this? I guess you answer here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.116 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Machine guns by caliber
editI have nominated Category:Machine guns by caliber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Patton123 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:XM395-1.jpg
edit
File:XM395-1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The SWINGFIRE article - excellent research
edit- I was reading the SWINGFIRE article and when I saw the MCLOS/SALOS designation I went "They took the auto-gathering as SALOS guidance" then I read you note on the discussion page and went to the reference. I was surprised that it was true. Thanks for doing the research and reference. Btw, I have some photos and material from my defense journalism days, and will add some material as external images. Again, I very much appreciate the hard work you put into the defense articles for WP.--Jackehammond (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question on penetration of Swingfire. This page mentions a penetration of 24 inches (about 610-mm), but the article states both 500-mm and 800-mm under the "specification" heading. Any idea which it was? BTW, this page mentions 800-mm. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- WilsonThe British never would say to me. Just they could take on any known tank. The diameter of the missile is 170mm. But you notice a step down like the early TOW. The nose is about 160mm I figure. If the warhead is located in the front step down part that gives a penetration of at least 500mm. Not much really and I don't accept it. I think the step down nose is double skinned for the fuze system. And it is step down like the early TOW to make it more stable in flight. The warhead is where the step down joins the missile body. And that makes it near 170mm which gives it at least 600mm or more. Again not much. But remember if the step down part is acting as a "stand off" you got most likely 1000mm penetration. Check the penetration of I-TOW when they added that stand off probe or the Milan 2 compared with the Milan 1 (ie I think it had a penetration of only 450mm if I remember correctly). The SWINGFIRE was the only ATGW at that time that considered more than how to get from Point-A to Point-B with a high probability of an impact. The designers took in to consideration the "battlefield" and gave the other side the benefit of a brain! They could have fitted an SACLOS system. But they knew the other side would try and use flares or smoke to decoy or jam it. MCLOS has the human brain in it to say, those are flares and go through the smoke in a straight line, where an SACLOS will go "H*LL! Where is the flare! Find the F--Kin Flare!!!!. Also, they knew when an ATGW is launched the enemy is going to poor fire in where they see the launch. Last, the way it is controlled in flight. Most ATGW have an "S" like pattern when the operator moves the joy stick. Making for very high concentration and skill. The SWINGFIRE has a "L" straight line pattern. You move the joy stick and it is like you shove it over to the right or left in a straight line, and then when the joystick returns to center, it goes back on its heading. Only ten or twenty feet to the the left or right or up or down. Finally, the RED ARROW 8 from China (PRC) is a cheap knock off of the SWINGFIRE (probably bought from Egypt) without the operator separated from the launcher feature and a cheaper warhead set up and SACLOS guidances based on the TOW (supplied by Iran). PS> Ripley is probably going: They have hijacked my TALK page!!!!! <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jack, thanks for the comments. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jack, thanks for the comments. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- WilsonThe British never would say to me. Just they could take on any known tank. The diameter of the missile is 170mm. But you notice a step down like the early TOW. The nose is about 160mm I figure. If the warhead is located in the front step down part that gives a penetration of at least 500mm. Not much really and I don't accept it. I think the step down nose is double skinned for the fuze system. And it is step down like the early TOW to make it more stable in flight. The warhead is where the step down joins the missile body. And that makes it near 170mm which gives it at least 600mm or more. Again not much. But remember if the step down part is acting as a "stand off" you got most likely 1000mm penetration. Check the penetration of I-TOW when they added that stand off probe or the Milan 2 compared with the Milan 1 (ie I think it had a penetration of only 450mm if I remember correctly). The SWINGFIRE was the only ATGW at that time that considered more than how to get from Point-A to Point-B with a high probability of an impact. The designers took in to consideration the "battlefield" and gave the other side the benefit of a brain! They could have fitted an SACLOS system. But they knew the other side would try and use flares or smoke to decoy or jam it. MCLOS has the human brain in it to say, those are flares and go through the smoke in a straight line, where an SACLOS will go "H*LL! Where is the flare! Find the F--Kin Flare!!!!. Also, they knew when an ATGW is launched the enemy is going to poor fire in where they see the launch. Last, the way it is controlled in flight. Most ATGW have an "S" like pattern when the operator moves the joy stick. Making for very high concentration and skill. The SWINGFIRE has a "L" straight line pattern. You move the joy stick and it is like you shove it over to the right or left in a straight line, and then when the joystick returns to center, it goes back on its heading. Only ten or twenty feet to the the left or right or up or down. Finally, the RED ARROW 8 from China (PRC) is a cheap knock off of the SWINGFIRE (probably bought from Egypt) without the operator separated from the launcher feature and a cheaper warhead set up and SACLOS guidances based on the TOW (supplied by Iran). PS> Ripley is probably going: They have hijacked my TALK page!!!!! <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
RiddleyI have a reply to your message over on my TALK page.--Jackehammond (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
RiddleyI have added some "external images" to the SWINGFIRE article. There are five. If you feel that is to many, delete any you wish. Also, unlike others I have an old fashion letter from BAC dated 1987 giving me permission to use the images in "articles". It says nothing about how long from that letter or not-for-profit articles. Also, if you get a chance check the HJ-8 article (actually a love feast article) on the Chinese Red Arrow 8, which the missile is a reverse engineering (ie polite way of saying COPYING) of the SWINGFIRE. I added a line to that effect with a reputable reference to back it up. But I have a feeling that our WP friends from the Middle Kingdom are not going to take to kindly to that sentence. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
WilsonThe cut-away illustration, shows the SWINGFIRE's HEAT warhead in the step down portion of the missile body. So it is far less than 170mm in diameter. Also, the standoff is a lot less. Finally, I have the B/W photos some where, but they show a test firing of the SWINGFIRE against an old Conqueror heavy tank. And the Conqueror had "heavy" armor.--Jackehammond (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jack, an older edition of JIW had an article on Swingfire and mentioned the test against the Conqueror. The missile penetrated the frontal armor but from what I could tell, the amount of armor present to be penetrated was quite a bit less than the theoretical performance of the HEAT jet. I'll look at the graphic you posted; thanks for putting it on-line. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wilson On that you are correct if my memory is right. It was a side shot against the top of the turret.--Jackehammond (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Less-lethal weapons
editI have nominated Category:Less-lethal weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Non-lethal weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
editThe Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Less-lethal weapons
edit
Category:Less-lethal weapons, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 05:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Low Cost Miniature Cruise Missile has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- orphaned article on (apparently) unsuccessful proposal. Can be recreated easily if this ever gets a contract.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Will Beback talk 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)