Talk:Fast attack craft

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Fast Attack Craft[edit]

Does anyone know why the Germans built FACs it seems a bit pointless to me if they were used in the baltic sea. When during the cold war it was more the submarine that was a threat than surface ships or was there a large concentration of russian surface ships in the baltic region.Corustar 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Baltic fleet was first the main fleet in the west. The Schnellboote should prevent a running out of the Baltic fleet into the Atlantic. Thus they forced to remove the Soviet Union their naval base in Murmansk and to station the majority of their fleet there under climatically unfavorable conditions. This meant a substantial logistic expenditure for the Soviet Union. In addition the task of the S-Boote was the protection from landing operations, which were expected in Denmark and Norway. In the North Sea the S-Boote should secure the entrance of the allied ones to the German ports. But fast high-sea-suited boats were necessary. --WerWil 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War[edit]

What's uhmerica got to do with it, the ancient ships of the Med had rams built in for attacking. Stupid yanks relating everything back to Lincoln and calling biscuits cookies.83.70.35.39 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "Small offensive ships were already in use ... at any Time in naval History. That's really no news. American civil war is no turning point in this. --WerWil 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Term "Yank" should not be used to refer to anybody south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Thank you Wandavianempire (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Soviet motorgunboat aof WWII whith four torpedotubes and only two AA-Turrets? And the Guns, probably AK-230, are a post WWII design. I guess this is a "mistranslation".--WerWil (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or split please[edit]

Please merge this article with Missile boat or split the ship classes cleanly between them. Hcobb (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missile boat is a subset of Fast Attack Craft. Some FAC have guns, some missiles, some mines etc 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Pictures[edit]

While I don't agree with By78's edits, I do think that this article has way too many pictures considering its size. Perhaps some of them could be removed? Vedant (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the Iran and North Korea line references which, without any notable citations, context or other reasons for noting them as 'rogue states' in this particular article, is weasel-y at best and inappropriate political baiting at worst. The paragraph reads better as simple fact anyway. 66.96.18.72 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types[edit]

Where do this Acronyms like FAC (G) come from? As far as I know ther is no "official" international Classification for FAC. It should be said who uses them.--WerWil (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Attack Craft → Fast attack craft – Correct capitalization - see WP:CAPS. DexDor (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Generic term, should be decapitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Agree as to its generic nature. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

No consensus for merge. Miniapolis 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fundamentally, I think this article and Missile boat cover the same ground. There is a bit of material about torpedo boats, PT boats and the like but that's well covered in those articles (and I think it's anachronistic to use the term "fast attack craft" for torpedo boats, though I'm open to correction if people know better. Also, the list in Missile boat should be spun off to List of missile boat classes or similar. Any views before I jump in and do this...? The Land (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. However the definition of FAC on this article would include WWII era MTBs etc, even though FAC wasn't the term used at the time. The spun off list might be better at List of fast attack craft or similar. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unter which Lemma? Missile Boat would be completely wrong for all Boats before the 1960s ant many after.--WerWil (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per WerWil comment. Early developments like MTBs, MAS, PTS, E-boats are essentially different to a missile boat in terms of weaponry, but their design is almost identical regarding speed, short-range and purpose.--Darius (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree as the term FAC is a general term that can also be used to describe boats armed with other weapons like Torpedoes or Guns-only, whereas "Missile Boat" is a more specific term used to describe small boats armed with missiles. -- Rhk111 08:25, 4 March 2014 (GMT +8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhk111 (talk • contribs)

Oppose I think this section viable as is, and presents a nice concise history of the concept of a very small vessel packing maximum firepower. I see no contradiction between a 90 ton E Boat and a 500 ton Sa'ar corvette. Both can destroy the largest ships of the line of their time. The article also makes a good attempt to compare types too, in which the article states, "the FAC was reborn as the Missile boat.." with new Soviet designs. It is quite a neat device actually. Keep as is. Irondome (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose this merger. The term "fast attack craft" covers more than just missile craft, as the article (and this) make clear. If the section on Missile craft there covers much the same ground as the missile craft article, that is easily resolved by trimming it to a summary and adding a main article tag. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes[edit]

Following on from the Merge discussion (above) I have summarized the information on Missile boats (I've moved the excess to the Missile boat article) and merged it into the History section. So now this article can give an overview of the concept, with its various iterations from early times to now, and the Missile boat article can focus on them in particular (as the Torpedo boat and Motor torpedo boat articles do). I trust that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]