Talk:Bazooka

message: I suggest merging this article with shoulder-fired missile, as the pages cover the same topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:10CE:8238:7608:F50 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal

message: Whats the reload time of a bazooka? I need this info for the design of a table top RPG. I want to make it realistic and can't find this info. Some1 Help PLZ! --Hawkcohen (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reload Time of a Bazooka

message: Nice sarcasm, but what's the actual effective range, 8P (I don't think that'd be effective anyways, since you'd blow yourself up). 65.172.9.227 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow, 1 yard effective range

message: "It was highly effective, so much so that the Germans copied it, possibly from those supplied to the Russians, to produce their own version known as the Panzerschreck." but according to the Panzerschreck article, "When German troops captured the American M9A1s "bazooka" in Africa, they noticed qualities that was lacking in their Panzerfausts and quickly sent it to engineers back in Germany for analysis."67.140.87.147 03:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Panzerfaust (Armorfist): Single-use antitank weapon Germans developed. Simialr to LAW and others.
Panzerschreck (Armorterror): Reloadable antitank weapon similar to Bazooka, improved from the Panzerfaust when Germans saw the improvement potential from their own 'Armorfists'. The difference lies in the aiming, as the Panzerfaust resembles RPG and Panzerschreck has the barrel to stabilize the rocket on its way.
--131.207.161.152 08:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So where was it copied from?

message: How do we rephrase the article to account for the fact
that Col. Gregory J. Kessenich invented the "bazooka rocket"
concept in 1941. When he submitted his concept it was
declared top secret and he was deprived from patenting it or discussing it during WWII. It was then developed during
1942 perhaps by the people already mentioned in the article.
It was in 1950 when the secretary of war acknowledge
Kessenich and he received his patent in 1951.
::He got his patent for the finished product, but Dr., Goddard still gets the recognition for the original idea, and the rocket itself. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Inventor of Bazooka Rocket! 

message: I think we should merge the variants and specifications sections. Oberiko 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would be helpful given how the two sections cover two aspects of the same thing. Perhaps (but not necessarily) a table? Khitrir (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I approach this one with fear and trepidation, because I wonder if this might be one of those oft-trodden paths, but . . .
I'd always heard that the name "Bazooka" was onomatopaeic - almost the direct equivalent of the Russian "Katyusha". I would be prepared to accept the alternative proposal of the musical instrument, except . .
. . . there's no such instrument as a bazooka. There is a Bassoon, but that's not similar enough to be a likely source in my book. To me, the answer above makes more sense. I won't change it unless I get some agreement, though.Johno 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Katyusha" isn't onomatopoeic; it's the diminutive form of the woman's name Yekaterina, which means Catherine. As the Katyusha article notes, the rocket system was named after a song about a girl of that name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I believe the instrument in question is the Bouzouki. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the "Bazooka" musical instrument from which the weapon got it's name was a one off, home-made trombone belonging to a popular American Comedy actor of the time - I have even seen a photograph of said actor posing with his "bazooka" alongside a smiling GI weilding an M1 Bazooka... Unfortunately I have no idea who tht comedy actor was... Getztashida 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comedian who invented the bazooka was Bob Burns.Dellant (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an Origin of the "bazooka" name subsection in the "Design and development" section - I'm not sure if this is the right place but the nickname was acquired during the first demonstration of the prototype. I have included a link to our Bazooka (instrument) article.  Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: As an answer on one of the message boards, I posted this. It will help to clarify:
There were four different 3.5 R/L's in US Inventory.
M20 was the basic design: Had fittings held in with machine screws
M20B1: Had fittings cast as part of the entire unit.
Circa late 1952 there was an upgrade of the electric connector (Connector Latch Assembly) which provided the electricity to the rocket motor. This was known as the A1 improvement. Thus you now had four varients:
M20A1 (Upgraded M20)
M20A1B1 (Upgraded M20B1)
To summarize the US had the M20, M20A1, M20A1B1, and the M20B1.
By the Vietnam War there were no 2.36 in US inventory but we still supported their use in some foreign countries.
-- Ordnanceferret 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M20 variants (from the main page) 

message: Who or what is Mohaupt? There's a reference to this under Born too late for WWI, but there's no introduction to this term. I don't even know whether it's a person or a company, or what. Riordanmr (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some text was lost due to vandalism. I've restored it. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Mohaupt? 

message: Hi there. I thought I'd make some comments about the article before it gets reviewed for GA. It's an interesting article, but I think it has some problems that need to be addressed. The later sections, post-WWII are extremely short and completely bereft of references, which needs to be fixed. However, it's the references that I think are the biggest problem. Documentaries are not reliable sources that can be cited - they often get even basic facts wrong, and shouldn't be cited. The bayonetstrength and geocities sites are also not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as the facts they present can't be verified, and the same for diggerfield and marchfield. The books you also cite seem okay, but I think more could be used - they seem to be a rather random selection really. The lead also needs expanding, but the references are the main point.
For what it's worth, I'd withdraw the article from being reviewed at the moment and replace your sources with reliable ones, probably books, expand the lead and the later sections of the article. Well done for your efforts so far, though! Skinny87 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... I'll take a look, but the article "fate per se" was not really my concern... the back story is here... such an article is well beyond start class... as at least "average" (i.e. "C"... I hope and trust you at least agreed with "that"! <g>). I was more TICKED by the template, and had hoped to stimulate proper classification and improvement efforts. So Thanks! // FrankB 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that discussion looks...complex. I'd suggest removing the article from the GA Noms, as it won't pass. It needs some good sources, no websites or documentaries, Tell you what, I have Tetrarch (tank) to get to GA and a few other articles to work on, but this has picqued my interest. Give me a week or two and I'll see if I can scrounge up some sources to get it to GA. Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, heh... but the GA nom has already worked... it's attracted YOUR interest. For my part, I merely made sure it had some data from the documentaries you trash ... my sole involvement, save for cosmetic stuff like title format, layout changes, etc... overall trivial things. Documentaries, are like news articles, they are better than wild ass guesses, and who is to say that their researchers are less skilled than a book writer's? Both have an editorial oversight and employer to vett the researchers work. Dissing such with such a dismissively broad brush is kind of snobby to my way of thinking. OTOH, fully agree with books as best source... but what then do YOU DO when two authors disagree... say one insists German's copied bazooka from Russians, and another copied from the one's captured at the Kasserine pass? in the North Africa Campaign?  Not being Godlike, I can't say who is correct, whether both, or neither, and mostly, so can't anyone else! Enjoy trying though. But not as much as enjoy making sure we cover alledged factoids asserted elsewhere, including your despised documentaries... even if just in counterpoint! As to GA versus B-Class, A-class, whatever... I don't really know the ropes as I spread my efforts to too many topics to focus so exclusively on any to go up that ratings ladder, but certainly ajudge this better than "C-Class"... and far better than "Start Class". "C-Class" seems to not be an option in MILTHIS, at least, so... Let the GA nom draw some feed back for whoever maintains the piece. // FrankB 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I think some things have been missed in this review. The lead is fragmentary and needs expanding, the section titles aren't exactly encyclopaedic, facts are mentioned in the lead that aren't mentioned in the main body of the article, and the later sections could be greatly expanded. And documentaries are not reliable sources - they need to be replaced by proper, verifiable references in books or articles. And the websites like geocities need to be removed as also being unreliable. This article is not to GA standard at this time. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-GA Review Comments 

message: ;Copied from my talk Here (Bazooka):...and regarding withdrawing GA nomination...
Hey there. I left some notes pre-GA Review on the talkpage of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... I'll take a look, but the article "fate per se" was not really my concern... the back story is here... such an article is well beyond start class... as at least "average" (i.e. "C"... I hope and trust you at least agreed with "that"! <g>). I was more TICKED by the template, and had hoped to stimulate proper classification and improvement efforts. So Thanks! // FrankB 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that discussion looks...complex. I'd suggest removing the article from the GA Noms, as it won't pass. It needs some good sources, no websites or documentaries, Tell you what, I have Tetrarch (tank) to get to GA and a few other articles to work on, but this has picqued my interest. Give me a week or two and I'll see if I can scrounge up some sources to get it to GA. Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, heh... but the GA nom has already worked... it's attracted YOUR interest. For my part, I merely made sure it had some data from the documentaries you trash ... my sole involvement, save for cosmetic stuff like title format, layout changes, etc... overall trivial things. Documentaries, are like news articles, they are better than wild ass guesses, and who is to say that their researchers are less skilled than a book writer's? Both have an editorial oversight and employer to vett the researchers work. Dissing such with such a dismissively broad brush is kind of snobby to my way of thinking. OTOH, fully agree with books as best source... but what then do YOU DO when two authors disagree... say one insists German's copied bazooka from Russians, and another copied from the one's captured at the Kasserine pass? in the North Africa Campaign?  Not being Godlike, I can't say who is correct, whether both, or neither, and mostly, so can't anyone else! Enjoy trying though. But not as much as enjoy making sure we cover alledged factoids asserted elsewhere, including your despised documentaries... even if just in counterpoint! As to GA versus B-Class, A-class, whatever... I don't really know the ropes as I spread my efforts to too many topics to focus so exclusively on any to go up that ratings ladder, but certainly ajudge this better than "C-Class"... and far better than "Start Class". "C-Class" seems to not be an option in MILTHIS, at least, so... Let the GA nom draw some feed back for whoever maintains the piece. // FrankB 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I think some things have been missed in this review. The lead is fragmentary and needs expanding, the section titles aren't exactly encyclopaedic, facts are mentioned in the lead that aren't mentioned in the main body of the article, and the later sections could be greatly expanded. And documentaries are not reliable sources - they need to be replaced by proper, verifiable references in books or articles. And the websites like geocities need to be removed as also being unreliable. This article is not to GA standard at this time. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Backstory

message: ok someone want to tell me why the M18 was deleted?
as well as the TM references? I dont understand why goofy civillians wont use the TM's. and why was the index list of rocket launchers deleted? Brian in denver (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: M18

message: Interesting. A friend of mine told me that his brother told him that there's no such thing as a bazooka... I guess he was wrong. Sithman VIII !! 21:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting. 

message: The text states that the M20 remained in service with the Marine Corps during the "early stages" of the war. What exactly constitutes the "early stages" of Vietnam? As M20s were still in use by Tet and Khe Sanh, I doubt most people (or at least most Americans) would consider this to be the "early stages" of the conflict.172.190.184.160 (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam use....define "early" 

message: Under the section "The shaped charge" we have this statement: "The combination of rocket motor and shaped charge warhead would put paid to Army development of light antitank guns." I think the expression 'finished' would be better here. I've been speaking (American) English for 60 years and I didn't know what "put paid to" meant, had to look it up. Grateful I am for the education but an international publication like this maybe ought to steer toward generally understood terms, especially when the special phrase doesn't really convey anything more than the standard one. Or does it? Friendly Person (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- "...would lead to Army development..." -- AstroU (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial Expression 

message: Cool! ... REAL cool .!.   .!.   .!.
 Headline-1: Watch high-tech 'bazooka' take down a drone
* http://video.foxnews.com/v/4786593768001/watch-high-tech-bazooka-take-down-a-drone/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
QUOTE: "Mar. 04, 2016 - 0:32 - Raw video: Device fires projectiles at targeted drones" -- AstroU (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New NEWS today, for future editing 

message: I wonder if this is right, that Mexico's Army used this Bazooka, because I've nevers seen it on the street.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potosinomx (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any source that this Bazooka was used in Mexico 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bazooka. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011100243/http://www.quartermaster.army.mil:80/oqmg/professional_bulletin/1996/Spring/tfsmith.html to http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/professional_bulletin/1996/Spring/tfsmith.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926093931/http://www.billricca.com/pubs/contactor_latch_assembly_standardized.jpg to http://www.billricca.com/pubs/contactor_latch_assembly_standardized.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302160520/http://www.tanks.net:80/anti-tank-weapons/spain-m65-anti-tank-rocket-launcher.html to http://www.tanks.net/anti-tank-weapons/spain-m65-anti-tank-rocket-launcher.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731165237/http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com:80/Weapons/infantryantitank/infantry_anti_tank_weapons.htm to http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/infantryantitank/infantry_anti_tank_weapons.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently implies, without coming out and saying so, that schurzen on German AFVs were an anti-bazooka defense. They weren't. It is pretty well-known that they were developed to counter Soviet 14.5mm AT rifles. In addition, improper spacing of any kind of spaced armor can actually enhanced the effectiveness of HEAT warheads. I don't know if that effect was seen with schurzen but the statement that they could render a bazooka round useless seems like a stretch, at best, and misleading at worst. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schurzen 

message: The statement in question reads: "During the critical late-September Battle of Arracourt, Carpenter managed to achieve disabling hits on several German armored cars and even two Panther tanks, along with killing or wounding a dozen or more enemy soldiers.[21][25]" 
Carpenters achivement, while extraordinary is likely exaggerated and probably even originate from wartime propaganda. Just imagine, a low-and-slow flying Piper J-3 with only two or four bazookas at it's disposal, above a hot combat zone, that had anti-aircraft fire support and well camouflaged units earmarked. This story seems almost incredible to be true and I request to remove those wartime pamphlets as credible source. TeckHawk (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bazooka. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904052344/http://www.aero-web.org/specs/piper/l-4j.htm to http://www.aero-web.org/specs/piper/l-4j.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212014023/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/usa.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/usa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203114143/http://www.marchfield.org/vc47a.htm to http://www.marchfield.org/vc47a.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/professional_bulletin/1996/Spring/tfsmith.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tanks.net/anti-tank-weapons/spain-m65-anti-tank-rocket-launcher.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/infantryantitank/infantry_anti_tank_weapons.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bazooka. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925204601/http://www.qdnd.vn/qdndsite/vi-vn/75/72/10/52/52/262192/Default.aspx to http://www.qdnd.vn/qdndsite/vi-vn/75/72/10/52/52/262192/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello,
As per WP:CITEVAR a consensus must be found to change the citation style, I would like to ask the permission to change all the citations of a book in the bibliography to a Template:Harvnb or Template:Sfn format. It would be easier to use. Any objection ?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: What is the proper form of this sentence (I have highlighted the difference, the highlight is not in the actual artice text:
I prefer the latter, User:BilCat the former. My personal opinion is that "visible" means, and only means, "able to be seen" while "visibility" can mean that ("the tank had low visibility because it was hull-down") but also can denote a quality imparted to other entities that are not the subject of the sentence ("because of the fog, visibility was low" doesn't mean that the fog itself was difficult to see, but that it imparted the quality of difficult-to-see to the landscape generally). 
  
It's the latter that we're trying to convey -- not that the WP smoke itself is easy to se, but that it imparts some quality of able-to-be-seen to the soldiers or whatever behind it. Because "visibility screen" rather than "visibility enhancement" or whatever is used, it's probably apparent that the able-to-be-seen quality of these soldiers is less, not more.  
The term "smokescreen" is pretty well known, so something like
could be used, but it's not ideal IMO... we can't use "smoke" twice in the same sentence, and there isn't really a good substitute. Also, what we are trying to do here is describe a smokscreen (which, fine; ESL readers may not know it) so using that term is kind of didactic.  
  
So, which? Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I reverted the wrong diff. It was quite late for me, and I went to sleep shortly after the revert, so I wasn't. able to catch the mistake until now. BilCat (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! I occasionally enjoy writing long detailed screeds about incredibly unimportant nitpicky things. It takes my mind off the raccoons. Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "visible" or "visibility" or other? 

message: So where is the ammo? I cant find it. I'm not sure if the copycat Chinese version uses the same ammo as the M1 and as a gun nerd, it is a great chance they used a smaller rocket for cost purposes. Just wanna make sure
 Callsign Crowfield (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammo?