User talk:Nfe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Nfe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Artillery[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Nfe! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.tripod\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:V[edit]

Dear Nfe, I am answering here, though it would be better even on WP:V or somewhere else.

Don't understand me/us wrong, I am not saying your information is incorrect (I have no proof for either possibility, and I am far from knowledgeable in the subject, so), what I am saying is, that there should be proof it is correct. You say that other people use your site, if they are recognised, independent sources, then that is what is meant in WP:V, and the site can be used as a reference (IMHO, it would then far better used as a reference, in stead of 'just a link in the external links section'.

Let me try to explain what difference I mean (this has nothing to do with your site!). A 'stupid' example, I can write a website stating that grass is definitely orange. If I select my sources correctly, I can put in references that say that grass is not blue, purple, black, white, red, yellow .. and omit the proof that grass is green and the references that state that grass is not orange. At that point my text looks quite OK, it is citing (respectable) sources. Still it is complete rubbish. When respectable, independent sources are using my page as proof that grass is indeed orange, then apparently my data is true, and verifyable (even: it is verified).

I see that you are knowledgeable in the subject, I am sorry that your site became the subject of a (bit heated) discussion, but I hope this makes all a bit clearer. User:Shadowbot reverts some links that are in almost all cases not allowable per WP:EL (e.g. there is absolutely no reason to link to http://www.example.org, so that gets always reverted). It thus makes a small number of mistakes, but even human editors do that. It would not revert if you would have put the link inside <ref>-</ref>-tags (then it is a reference, not just an external link). And when too many Shadowbot-reverts get reverted because Shadowbot is really wrong, the link is removed from the blacklist (as has already happened with members.tripod.com) and we check by hand.

I would say, expand the articles, use your site as a citation, that gives it more credit. Happy editing, and see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6 inch Howitzers at Gallipoli[edit]

Hello Nigel, you've added a comment on the 6 inch 26 cwt talk page that 4 batteriers served at Gallipoli. I had assumed the 6 inch howitzers theere were 30 cwt, as the intro date for the 26 cwt is a bit late, and because Galipoli was a lower priority than the Werstern Front it wouldn't have got first use of new ordnance. Most writers don't bother to differentiate so it's diffilcult to work out which gun they are referring to during the transition period. Farndale in his history of the RA in WWI is disappointing here.Rcbutcher (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


IIRC there are photos showing both types there. I suspect the 26 cwt were 17 Siege Bty.Nfe (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

precise definition of shrapnel[edit]

Hi Nigel, I see you modified the functioning of original shrapnel, to .."carried a large number of individual bullets to the target and then ejected them forwards.". AS far as I can make out, the early versions did not propel bullets forward, and even some late shells such as 4.5 inch howitzer and 4-inch naval shells had the bursting charge in head rather than the base... the key point to me is that the bullets were separated from the case, after which they continued on much the same (i.e. forward) trajectory via their own momentum.. the main function in British use of the shrapnel bursting charge appears to have merely to get rid of the shell case. any thoughts on this ? Rcbutcher (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is an artillery entry then I think the issue should be kept simple, ie shrapnel projects forward with no lateral projection. The fact that the original may have been slightly different is a distraction. Nfe (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Artillery article[edit]

Hi Nigel. I'll be improving the Artillery article (very slowly) over the next few months. If you have any thoughts on the structure of the article, please contact me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Claret[edit]

Great work so far on the Claret article. My only suggestion is that you need to use more citations. You have added a lot of good info, it just needs to be referenced. Otherwise it won't meet the B class criteria. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, some such as the list of units is based on Britain's Small Wars with tidying up of titles, the ops report in NA would reveal them but almost certainly not in a cohesive list (I've only looked at a few in Kew). Of the vignettes, this is a problem I've been musing on, two of them are first hand experience (which is not the same as 'original research'!) and the other is very close second hand. The supporting evidence is in the relevant ops reports but I've never looked at them so can only be 99.9% sure.

Pocock is the best general source I know, I'm currently drafting a heavy revise of Walker's military career (the current biography entry is a travesty), I'll also work on Brunei Revolt, Confrontation and Air War.Nfe (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, Pocock seems to be the source of an error that has been copied by several other authors (and I removed from the entry), "29 gun". This was only true when there was a cdo bty and one RMA bty, both with 4 guns (I'm assuming RMA btys had 4) alongside the UK based regt and medium sect.

Konfrontasi...[edit]

Thanks for your edits do this article - and for providing a reference eg here. However, it would be great if you could include the references as in-line cites. As time goes by, it will not be possible to match your new info with the reference. if you need a hand, please let me know. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuze (munitions)[edit]

Hi Nigel, I've made a start at trying to improve this article, but I'm a historian rather than an artillerist. Would you care to go over it ? Also - I'd like to build an article on the British WWI No. 106 instantaneous fuze, as it seems to have genuine military historical significance. Problem is, I haven't been able able to find any background info on its development, just diagrams and photographs. Do you have any info on it ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rod, Yes the shrapnel article does need tightening up, and I'll have a go in the next few weeks. 106 fze is a bit more tricky, the only reliable information that I have is what's in Vol X of the Minsitry of Munitions history, and there's not very much. There's no doubt that it was a significant improvement on No 44 and perhaps it was the marked improvement rather than any particularly special features that made in noteworthy. NigelNfe (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to look at Artillery fuze too ? Should be right up your alley. Esp. WWII developments, fuze-setters & automatic loading etc. Also needs better explanation of rationale for safety shutter vs centrifugal bolt.. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Rifled breech loader[edit]

Hi Nigel, good work on fuzes ! In the same line, would you care to look at Rifled breech loader ? I made a start at beating it into shape by making separate sections for the most important innovations in breech mechanisms but there is obviously a lot more to it. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuzes[edit]

Hi Nigel, please consider uploading images to Commons rather than the English language Wikipedia. Commons is for all media such as images, audio and video files that can be shared in articles between all the different language Wikis. There is in fact already a category for British fuzes on Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fuzes_of_the_United_Kingdom . You will see an Upload link there on the left. Let me know if you need help with this. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation[edit]

Hi Nfe! Back in August 2009, you edited the article Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation and added a bulk of new informations to it. For the following section you did not provide a source:

Between March and June a new pattern emerged in the 2nd Division in a series of actions between Gurkhas and professional soldiers from the Black Cobra Battalion. However their losses were several times the Gurkhas’ and in one incident 4 Black Cobras clashed with 2 Gurkhas, the Cobras were killed and the Gurkhas unscathed. In another incident 6 Black Cobras were captured by Ibans and lost their heads.

For personal knowledge, I would like to ask you if you could tell me the source for this section. I'm especially interested in the exact nature of the Indonesian "Black Cobra Battalion", as there is no current unit in the Indonesian Armed Forces going by that name. Thus I wonder if you could enlighten me there. Additionally I'm curious about the way the Ibans mentioned in that section were affiliated to the Malaysian or other forces. If you could answer these questions I would be really grateful. Thanks in advance --DavidDCM (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Source is Pocock pg 188. Indonesian unit names also confuse me. My current theory is that units gave themselves nicknames. This is based on Conboy's Kompassus book which makes clear that RPKAD companies gave themselves nicknames, based on this why wouldn't army battalions do the same thing? As to who they were, Pocock pg 181 refers to another action in 2nd Div at about the same time (the one where SS11s were fired). There weren't huge numbers of Indon regular battns so its possible that they were the same - 328 Raider Bn. I think the Ibans were just helping and not Border Scouts, unless there were other head taking episodes, this one got some attention in the UK press at the time.Nfe (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Yes, nickname is a possible explanation. Another one that came to my mind was that maybe the battalion's unit batch sported a black cobra. I'll try to do a bit more research into this question. But thanks for the quick and detailed answer :) --DavidDCM (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:1904_uglomer.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:1904_uglomer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

72nd Indian Infantry Brigade[edit]

Can you check the details added for the 72nd Indian Infantry Brigade at least one unit did not exist at the time. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify this WWII gun ? British ?[edit]

Warneton 051003 (8).JPG

Hi Nigel can you identify this ? Some sort of 25 pounder? But the clip over the barrel doesn't match. Neither does the horizontal block breech. ??? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The platform looks 25-pr-ish but the rest of the carriage looks odd, the line of the trail seems strange and there seem to be strange bits on it but its difficult to tell from the angle of the photo. The elevating mass has nothing of a 25-pr about it.

The photo is obviously in a European country, which one might give a clue. The horizontal breech is due to the cradle.Nfe (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader labelled it "Warneton (Belgium), british gun of the World War II". Could this be a Belgian or French gun used by returned liberation forces towards the end of WWII ? Or did they all use standard British or US equipment ? The fact that it's been put on some sort of memorial display and is well maintained would indicate it has some relevance, rather than just some obscure piece dug up and displayed. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader can label it whatever he/she likes, but it is definitely not a British gun of WW2. The foregn elements of 21 Army Gp were the NL bde and the Polich Armd Div, I've a vague idea that there may have been a Belgian inf batalion, and Czechs also ring a bell. However, all in 21 AG used standard British equipment. The French were with the USA and used US equipment. The carriage is definitely not 25-pr, the 25-pr trail bends down very noticeably at about 2/3 along. So not carriage, not elevating mass and not shield of 25-pr or any other UK gun.Nfe (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it be a modernised version of the German 77mm FK 16 that Belgium acquired after WWI and called Canon de 75 mle GPIII, and would have been Belgium's only real artillery in WWII ? Rcbutcher (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but the only (very poor) photo I have shows it with wooden wheels and doensn't show the shape of the shield, but the front of the cradle is very similar. I looked at it before but assumed if it was pre-1940 (and they may not have been modified for vehicle towing) they were all been taken over by the Germans and given a German designation and not re-appeared in Belgium, and post war my understanding is that Belgium adopted 25-pr or 105mm.Nfe (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Could this be a moderenised version of a Skoda 14/19 100 mm howitzer or something closely related ? Barrel, recoil mechanism & carriage look right. See :
War Museum Athens - Skoda VZ 14 field howitzer - 6760.jpg
. Poland modernised it as 100mm Skoda 100/24 wz. 14/19 : [1] How this got to Belgium I dcan't imagine. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)}}.

Looking at pics of the Skoda M14 10cm L/20 in Ortner's Austro-Hungarian Artilllery 1867 - 1918 I say its carriage is a good candidate. The cradle, both ends look very much the same, the saddle seems very similar in shape (side view) and the normal spade has the distinctive lines of holes. The basic trail also looks about the same thickness and shape. Nfe (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No. 106 Fuze[edit]

Hello Nigel, would you be interested in looking at this article I've started and provide comments, corrections etc ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Rod, 18-pr HE was introduced in 1914, if you look at the production data in the Min of Mun history it's clear that shapnel remained widely used throughout the war. GHQ Arty Notes for the offensive, both 1916 and 1917 editons clearly state that shrapnel was the preferred means of wirecutting, HE being useful for clearing the debris. I think DA fuzes were primarily introduced to reduce cratering. WW2 trials showed that HE was ineffective for wire cutting (or mine clearance). One problem is dispersion, getting enough shells bursting in the wire, second is that only half the fragments can possibly do any work (the rest are straight into the ground). With shrapnel the tricky bit is getting the angle of descent for max effect, get this right then all bullets from all shells are useful.Nfe (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Nigel. Does that mean I have over-emphasised the importance of the 106 fuze with HE for wirecutting, and under-emphasised its general utility for destruction without causing craters ? Would you care to adjust the article ? thanks, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing that might be worth looking at is comparative DA fuze costs. However, I think that when HE first came into use the thinking was that shrapnel would deal with troops as targets in the open and HE would be for destructive purposes, hence a bit of penetration was highly desirable. The downside proved to be cratering, not such a good thing in the Flanders terrain. Its useful to remeber that it was only 18-pr (ignoring 13) that used sharpnel in large quantities. Most guns and howitzers fired HE only. Penetration was highly desirable with these when they aere firing at dug-in positions with overhead protection. However, at lot German artillery was not so dug-in and this was a really important target and our own artillery was the only capability able to deal with it and needed HE fzd DA.Nfe (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Range table[edit]

Hi Nigel, I started this article and provided some WWI-era examples... would you be interested in expanding it ? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ehrhardt" QF 15 pounder[edit]

Hello Nigel, do you have any info on whether this gun was actually deployed in the Boer War ? I V Hogg states that some were "sent to South Africa" but doesn't say whether this was before hostilities ended or if they were actually used in action. I haven't found them mentioned anwhere else in the context of the Boer War. What does Headlam say ? regards, Rod

Rod, Headlam states the Ehrhardt guns arrived in Woolwich in Autumn 1900. However, his list of guns used in the Boer War includes 3 models of 15-pr BL - 'standard pattern' and two EOC pattern, I think EOC is Elswick Ordnance Company. However, my understanding is that the Ehrhardt guns were QF. Therefore Headlam is saying that they were not used in SA.Nfe (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Looks like Hogg (not Farndale as I said at first) is mistaken then. I certainly have not found any references to it in South Africa. FYI, Major Darrel Hall wrote some good articles on Boer War artillery : see http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol021dh.html http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol022dh.html http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol023dh.html in which he does not mention the Ehrhardt, but does describe how Britain acquired it in http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol025dh.html , so he was well aware of it. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heavy gun at Bardia[edit]

Hi there, the AWM has some photos of guns at Bardia, 1940, that look like 60-pounder Mk II ( http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/005259 & http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/005258 ), but the gun appears mounted quite low, other photos of Mk II I've seen show it mounted quite high, as here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:60pdrMkII1938.jpg. Any suggestions ? cheers, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rod, there's two possibilities for a 60-pr cariage, either a 60-pr ordnance or a 4.5 in Mk 1 ordnance. I don't think there was any change to trunnion height, both used the same cradle. I can't find a pair of photos that are undoubtedly correctly named. I'd expect the 4.5 tube to be a bit slimmer, with the HandBooks I can't validate the assumption. That said, the various structural features along the barrel in the IWM pic look the same as Chamberlain & Gander have for a 4.5 Gun Mk 1 on Carr 60-pr Mk IV and IVP!Nfe (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
60-punder gun Mk II is what I thought at first : muzzle appears to have a slight flare and barrel lacks the stepped appearance of the 4.5 inch gun : step normally seen just ahead of recoil buffer below barrel. But the carriage does not match any images I've seen : doesn't have the upright (recoil springs , buffers ?) of the 4.5 inch carriage, and although the buffer unit below the barrel matches images I've seen of the 60pounder Mk IV carriage, the height is nothing like : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/60pdrMkII1938.jpg : which is typical of photos I've seen with 60pounder Mk II guns. Odd. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The upright balancing gear was the Mk 2 carriage (or more accurately the 4.5/5.5 carriage). The first 4.5 guns used the 60-pr carriage, it seems that 76 were produced with 32 lost in France, some served in N Africa. The barrel in the commons photo looks exactly like the barrel of the 4.5 Mk 1 in Chamberlain & Gander, it is stepped in two places. The carriage also looks the same apart from the tread pattern on the tyres.Nfe (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How to differentiate between 7.2 inch howitzer and 155 mm gun on the Long Tom carriage[edit]

Apparently the Mk 6 7.2 inch howitzer borrowed the mounting from the US 155 mm "Long Tom" gun. I've uploaded some photos of both to Commons. Can you you suggest any way of differentiating between them ? Some photos below. Also, the Wiki page states Mk 6 was only deployed in 1945, but the IWM dates one of photos below as Sep 1944. Thanks. Rod
Identified at IWM as 7.2 inch howitzer of 75th Heavy Regiment in Italy, Sep 1944
Identified by IWM as 7.2 inch howitzer at Rhine Crossing, 1945
Identified by IWM as 155 mm gun of 33/61 Heavy Regiment, Royal Artillery, at Vergato, Italy. Feb 1945
Identified by AWM as 155 mm gun in Australian Service, 1945

It's difficult to judge from most photos, 7.2 had a barrel 26 inches longer. There's also a stepped thickening of the last few inches of the barrel at the muzzle with a pronounced edge, unfortunately the muzzle cover hides it. At the other end I think 7.2 had a straight 'lever breach mechanism' whereas 155mm had a curved end. I think the actual breach mechanisms may have been different, they almost certainly used a different lock and I think 7.2 used a brass housing for the gearing while 155mm may have used a steel housing.Nfe (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

7.2 hit a problem late in its development, IIRC a couple of bore prematures. This delayed its entry to service. There were also some Mk 5 guns on the M1 carriage, but I've never seen a photo.

Thanks Nigel. Here is a photo of a gun identified as 7.2 inch howitzer at the IWM Duxford... muzzle looks straight. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk)

7.2 howitzer at Duxford

If you look carefully at the line of the top of the barrel you'll see it's not smoothe, there is a change. It's clearer with photos from behind or the side, and without highlighting paintwork.Nfe (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed... now that you mention it, there is some sort of thickening just visible. Thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of word processors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not my intention to add a linkNfe (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Thanks for your explanation at Talk:Degree (angle)#Not a protractor. I have responded there. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shell (projectile) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • also initiates a [[pyrotechnics|pyrotechnic]] flare emitting white or 'black' [[infrared]] light). Typically illumination flares burn for about 60 seconds. These are also known as ''starshell''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)