Talk:Bazooka

Merger Proposal

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)

Reload Time of a Bazooka

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)

About as fast as it takes to quickly put a soda can in a coffee mug and tie a tea bag to the handle.Blamazon (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 1 yard effective range

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)

M1A1?

"This proved to be a good match, and by late 1942 the Rocket Launcher, M1A1 was introduced." Huh? Is "M1A1" ambiguous, as it traditionally refers to a variant of M1 Abrams? Someone please clarify this. --ZeroOne 19:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. has an (IMO) odd numbering system. The TYPE of ordnance is actually part of it's unique identifier. A few examples: M1 Rifle, M1 Carbine, M3 Submachine Gun, M3 Tank etc. Oberiko 02:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

M1A1 refers to Model 1, Adaptation 1. German Aircraft RLM #s had similar structure. Since Uhl invented the system, it's a pity they weren't called "Uhl Log's." Ha-Ha. Whiterussian1974 16:31, 04 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Ordnance Issue Number system is even more curious than you know. Originally, M numbers only dealt with small arms - other letters were used for specific pieces of Ordnance. Tanks originally used the letter "T" for developmental purposes, but then switched to M numbers by World War II. The "T" number remained during the developmental period, but it was morphed to an M when the final product was produced. The Russians gained their "T" number from the Christie tanks they licensed in the 1930's. Another example, Vehicles tended to use the classification system imposed by the manufacturer, which is why the original 2 1/2 Ton truck was known as the Model CCKW, which stood for Truck, Cargo, Medium Duty, 6X6, 4DT, 2.5 Ton, 164in Wheelbase. The companion "Duck" was the DUKW-353, which stood for Truck, Cargo, Amphibian, 6X6, ST, 2.5 Ton, 164in Wheelbase.World War II saw the standardization of the number system. in the model series seen in the examples on the detail page, the first series - M1 - indicates the first example of a production model . XM1 would indicate an experimental model, and YM1 would indicate a developmental model. The first modification would be indicated by M1A1, while M1A1B1 would indicate the first modification of the first modification, with that modification a reletively minor modification. If it had been a major modification, then the result would have been M1A2. nThe use of additional numbers for secondary modifications was subsequently dropped, and only major modifications get numkbers these days. That is why the M16 Rifle only has four "types", the M16, the M16A1, A2, and A3, even though several minor modifications took place over the life of the basic model. Another quirk are the items that were numbered with the M prefix, and the model year of introduction. Hence, the M-1903 Springfield Rifle, and the M-1911 Colt Automatic Pistol. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Russians gained their "T" number from the Christie tanks they licensed in the 1930's. The Soviets were using the "T" designator long before they bought the Christie. See T-18, T-27 for example. DMorpheus 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no developmental model "YM" in the US Army designation system. There seems to be some confusion with the current aircraft designation system there. The T designation was used for all "Trial" equipment, whether it be small arms or vehicles or anything else in the system (see the M1 Garand article). The XM designator replaced the T designator sometime in the 1950s, when I'm not entirely sure. T designations never related to the actual designation when adopted, could be reused within the same class, and were assigned almost at random.

The usage of manufacturer designations for certain trucks seems to be a hold-over from the introduction of vehicles into the system at all, circa WWI, since there were also vehicles that recieved M designations (various jeeps, beeps, etc).

The E suffix has also been used to designate experimental variants of T, XM, or M equipment.

I believe the B subvariant designation has gone by the wayside since the differences it used to designate (such as different hulls used for conversion to a certain vehicle standard such as M32 recovery vehicles or M36 tank destorys for instance) are no longer common place. It might still technically be in the system. Machine guns seem to retain their alphabetical suffixes to differentiate variants for specific roles, however, and we can see this still with the M240 series (A and E are skipped because of their existing usage, F appears to have been skipped as well).

The practice of using the year of adoption to designate weapons appears to have gotten confusing quickly, even with class distinctions required for full designations, and this might explain why the practice was dropped and classes started from M1 starting around the beginning of the Second World War. A good example of the confusion in doing this was the M1917 machine gun and M1918 machine gun, both adopted in 1917, but since they were in the same exact class it required a different year to be applied.

Lastly, US Army system designations (and those in the US Navy system as well actually), require the written class for a complete designation. In terms of this article, the complete designations would be Launcher, Rocket, 2.36 Inch, M9 and Launcher, Rocket, 3.5 Inch, M20 for instance. -- Thatguy96 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The M1A1 was significantly better than the original. I believe it had a plastic protection cone at the muzzle, as well as a electromagnetic trigger that didn't need batteries and was far more reliable than the M1. The rockets were also altered for faster reload times.Blamazon (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

So where was it copied from?

"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)

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)

The Panzerschreck was actually copied from the M1 Bazookas that had been captured in Tunisia. The Panzerfaust was a shaped charge rocket fired from a rather simple staff-like laucher that was discarded after use. The weapon was effective at extremely close ranges and the laucher was not reuseable.(Weapon Buff 24 Jan 2006)

THE PANZERFAUST WAS NOT MEANT TO BE DISPOSABLE! Panzerfaust soldiers would reload their panzerfaust using warheads that they carried with them. We have video footage of this. Also who would be lazy enough to throw away their launcher after one shot?Blamazon (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Actual Inventor of Bazooka Rocket!

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)

Col. Gregory J. Kessenich’s concept was a rocket projectile with a “shaped charge”. That is not the same as a rocket, which is Dr. Goddard’s idea. Even a shaped charge was already known. But combining the two for use in penetrating armor was Col. Kessenich’s idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.214.60 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hot Pictures

¿Can we get a picture or plural of a bazooka from world war 2?

Merge

I think we should merge the variants and specifications sections. Oberiko 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Name?

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)

"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)

And I believe the instrument in question is the Bouzouki. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Finlay: The Katyusha article also mentions the onomatopaeic theory, and my source for that one was actually a former Great Patriotic War soldier, so my guess was that he'd know. . . :) As for Bouzouki: Huh? There's not the slightest resemblance there, not even if you were looking through a welding mask! Ah well . . Johno 13:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

The comedian who invented the bazooka was Bob Burns.Dellant (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

M20 variants (from the main page)

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)

Who is Mohaupt?

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)

Some text was lost due to vandalism. I've restored it. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

B-Class

I spell checked the article, and corrected the errors. Therefore, it now meets Category 4 (Grammar) for B-Class Note There are still 4 other sections that article must fulfill to be eligible for Class B Flubeca 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, this is far beyond B as I found it today...

One dichotomy: The article was citing captured Russian bazookas' as the intel source for the German 3.5" copy. The experts on the program weaponology cited North African captured source equipment. IMHO, The Truth, was likely BOTH. I added my source and corrected the text to show both where needed. // FrankB 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review Comments

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)

Backstory

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)

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)

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)
   Not really... upshot is template wouldn't take commands I expected like others of type... class=X ought be consistent for all such, IMHO...

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bazooka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the World War II section, "Initially supplied with the highly unreliable M6 rocket and without training, the M1 did not play a significant armed role in combat in the North African fighting [16]," the comma needs to before the ref. Same section, "In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1 bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka under Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch invasions in the North African Campaign[1]." again, the period needs to come before the ref.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Born too late for WW-I section, it would be best if "Maryland" was linked once, per here. Same section, the link to "Indian Head" needs to be correctly linked to its correspondence article. The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here. There needs to be a consistency between "U.S." versus "US" and "Gen." and "General". The quote in the World War II section, is not supposed to be italicized, per here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, and 26 need to be properly formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Is there a source for this ---> "In the Pacific campaign, as in North Africa, the original bazookas sent to combat often had reliability issues. The battery-operated firing circuit was easily damaged during rough handling, and the rocket motors often failed because of high temperatures and exposure to moisture, salt air, or humidity. With the introduction of the M1A1 and its more reliable rocket ammunition, the bazooka was effective against some fixed Japanese infantry emplacements such as small concrete bunkers and pill boxes. Against coconut and sand emplacements, the weapon was not always effective, as these softer structures proved too resilient, often absorbing the warhead's impact sufficiently to prevent detonation of the explosive charge. Later in the Pacific war, most infantry and marine units often used the M2 flamethrower to overcome such obstacles. In the few instances in the Pacific where the bazooka was used against tanks and armored vehicles, the rocket's warhead easily penetrated the thin armor plate used by the Japanese, destroying the vehicle"? Also, are there any sources available for the Vietnam war and Other conflicts section?

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm very new to this sort of info. so if you believe that there is a problem with the article, maybe you should help the users who are improving this article. Note: I find it hard to believe that documentaries are not reliable sources, I believe that if they have reasonable detail, concerning the article, the info. is likely to help out. Also, if the nominator or whom ever works in this article, does not believe that the article is ready for Good article status, then I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe there are problems, and I am attempting to fix the article up; however, gathering sources is taking some time. I'd like to take the documentaries question to the MilHist talkpage. As for the nominator, if you look at the section above you'll see he isn't really involved with the article and simply nominated it to gain attention for the article to be fixed up by someone else. Skinny87 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the article is using at least two websites for citations which are in no way reliable - they just can't be used as they don't cite their sources and seem generally unreliable. This also hasn't been addressed by whoever is editing this article - whomever that actually is.Skinny87 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps I could offer a compromise? I am willing to take over this article and rework it, and eventually nominate it as a Good Article. However, (in my opinion) the article needs a lot of work to it, which will take time especially since I won't be able to get to some of my sources until christmas when I finish university. If all involved would be agreeable to this, I would withdraw the nomination of the article and set to work on it immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur that websites like any source have to be checked for their reliability. If it's in question other sources should be used or the disputed content removed. By no means are books a superior source, but some sources are quality material and others not. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum, I want to know who the "experts" involved in the making of the doc are. Based on the overall questionable quality of TV docs I've seen, tho, I'm with Skinny: no go. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

(Answer)

The documentary per se was a regular production of the Military Channel or History Channel, and the contributors were three regulars which individually are and were well established in their profession. (Specifics not recorded, but it'll repeat someday, I'm sure.)

For Example... being another program wherein one such panel member is expert weaponologist and Milt Historian of Janes publications. Such panels tend to be fixed per production company with "guest appearances" for topic specialists, and I vehemently disagree that such programs which are typically 'on topic' are poor sources...

I don't work for Janes, but having 30 years in the Navy CAN appreciate someone has impressive expertize, or not. and no where is it written that someone needs have a degree to know what the heck his subject is about. Quite a few NCO's out there that would put most Phd's to shame!

 • In this case, the factoid in question is itself omittable... who the Germans obtained the sample they then copied really comes down to trivia, and for the fact one source disagrees with the broadcast, means our article needs cite the documentary and AGF it's researchers. Not too hard. // FrankB 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Wasn't a documentary used in a ref somewhere for Iowa-class battleship? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would still be happier using print sources rather than documentaries; they can be accessed by all via libraries, wheras I, as a British citizen, cannot receive Weaponology as it's an American documentary. The sources used by each source can also be checked easily via footnotes and bibliography, whilst the documentaries do not have any such way to check their sources, AGF or not. Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• References comments (this version)
  • Ref #1 - documentary debate is above...
  • Ref #2, 5 and 11 - what qualifies bayonetstrength.150m.com as a reliable source?
  • Ref #3 and 4 - can be combined using WP:REFNAME.
  • Ref #7 and 12 - should be removed, as it is a personal website.
  • Ref #14, 16, 17 and 19 - can be combined with REFNAME.
  • Ref #18 and 20 - can be combined with REFNAME
  • Ref #22 - what makes diggerhistory.info a reliable source?
  • Ref #25 - needs a page number.
  • I do don't even know if it is used, as there are no in-text citations to it, but what makes "Anti-Tank Rocket M6 Bazooka" a reliable source? ([1]) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm compiling a list of references I'll use for the article, if it's agreed I can take over the article and withdraw the nom to work on it. I'll add to it as and when I can, but here it is:

• Weeks, John (1975). Men Against Tanks: A History of Anti-Tank Warfare. New York City, New York: Mason Charter, 189.
• Macksey, Kenneth; John H. Batchelor (1970). Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle. Scribners, 160. ISBN 684-13651-1.
• Perrett, Bryan (1995). Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare Case Studies. London, United Kingdom: Brockhampton Press, 209. ISBN 1-86019-954-2.
• Bishop, Chris (2002). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II: The Comprehensive Guide to Over 1,500 Weapons Systems, Including Tanks, Small Arms, Warplanes, Artillery, Ships and Submarines. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1586637622.
• Hogg, Ian. V (1997). Tank Killing: Anti-tank Warfare by Men and Machines. Sarpedon
• Rottman et al (2005) World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics. Osprey Publishing
• Green, Michael and Green, Gladys, Weapons of Patton's Armies, Zenith Imprint Press (2000) ISBN 0760308217,

Withdrawing per request

Per the above, and request on my talk, withdrawing GA nomination, since someone is interested in giving it TLC as needed. All I can say is it was certainly beyond Start class. // FrankB 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'll gather my books up and give it some TLC as soon as I can (but don't worry if nothing happens for a few weeks, I gotta do my uni work as well!) Skinny87 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

M18

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)

The M18 is a borderline variant. It is much more advanced than the original bazooka.Blamazon (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting.

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)

Vietnam use....define "early"

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)

Provincial Expression

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)

 Done -- "...would lead to Army development..." -- AstroU (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

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) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Any source that this Bazooka was used in Mexico

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Schurzen

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)

Questionable

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)

Drawbacks of M1 to M9A1 changes seem rather exaggerated

The original design was 54 inches (as a one-piece pipe) and 5.8kg (yeah I'm mixing units, so does the article). The field-experience-modified version clocked in at 61 inches (in two BNC-type-fitment pieces, so roughly 31 inches long but twice the width when being transported) and 6.5kg.

Apparently, for whoever wrote the main copytext, this 7 inch increase (or 23 inch decrease...) in length, 700g (about 1.5lb) increase in weight, and the need to carry two shorter pipes in the kitbag instead of one long one "turned the original lightweight, transportable design into a cumbersome, heavy, and overcomplicated final weapon" (heavily paraphrased!).

Do we think someone might be inexplicably biased?! The extra weight is about 1/8th of the original total (less than 1/9th of the final) and the proportional increase in assembled length is only slightly more significant, with the assembly sounding like it would take about fifteen seconds... and all the listed mods seem to have been introduced in response to some pretty critical performance issues with the initial "stick a miniature rocket motor on a grenade and shove it in a drainpipe" prototype, eg the rocket getting stuck in the bore and detonating whilst still inside... 193.63.174.254 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The content also claims the original bazooka was 'disposable' which is certainly not correct. The much later M72 LAW was a one-shot disposable launcher, but the WW2 bazooka was meant to be reused many times.

Still, the statement is sourced (I cannot verify the source). I will try to find another source with another opinion. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates

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)

"visible" or "visibility" or other?

What is the proper form of this sentence (I have highlighted the difference, the highlight is not in the actual artice text:

WP smoke not only acts as a visible screen, but its burning particles can cause severe injuries to human skin

WP smoke not only acts as a visiblity screen, but its burning particles can cause severe injuries to human skin

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

The emission from burning WP creates a smokescreen, but its burning particles can cause severe injuries to human skin

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)

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. Self-trout BilCat (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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)