Talk:MGM-140 ATACMS

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page are related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Cost per missile?

Trying to untangle the Taiwan contract. Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CEP?

Does anyone know the CEP of the MGM-140 "ATACMS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.80.208 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

designation?

"As a result, in the next year the branch ended its participation in the non-cruise missile portion of the program, hence the modern designation." I dont understand this at all. what designation is modern, and why is it "hence modern" when the reason given is that USAF is not on board anymore? are USAF projects not modern? Could someone maybe clarify? 84.215.194.30 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some reading. It means changing the name from JTACMS (J=Joint) to ATACMS (A=Army). I am updating the article Cmdrraimus (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove obviously photoshopped image

The diameter of the launched ATACMS is much larger than the launch tubes on the vehicle. The vehicle has a pod with six launch tubes, each filled with a smaller GMLRS. The ATACMS uses a pod with a single missile.

The 6 x GMLRS pod and the 1 x ATACMS pod can be used interchangeably on the same vehicle, though. Keimzelle (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a photoshop. The M270 seen in the picture is using two different pods on the same launcher. The right pod (left in our view) is either a 6 tube GMLRS (or MLRS from the picture date of 2006) rocket pod whereas the left pod (right one from our view) is an ATACMS pod. Another example of a dual pod GMLRS/ATACMS arrangement example can be seen at another US army link here. Just because one of the pods are MLRS/GMLRS doesn't mean the other pod automatically isn't an ATACMS pod. The ATACMS pods are known to use a fake cap to make them appear to be MLRS/GMLRS pods for deception purposes. One can tell them apart as the individual caps appear more shallow. Another example can be seen from the exercises in Korea where those appear to be using two ATACMS pods per M270. 2603:8000:4507:8D85:FC:7246:5BC7:DF21 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I didn't know about the GMLRS/ATACMS combo on the same vehicle.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to raise the same issue, but that's a fascinating answer. The picture in the first link, this one, is clearer than the main image, and clearly shows that the cap is just for show - is it in the public domain? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all Department of Defense images are public domain unless otherwise specified, of which the Army falls under. So using that image in the article wouldn't be an issue as far as I know. 2603:8000:4507:8D85:11D6:849B:F317:A54B (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and rename the "Future" section, partially talking about things that already happened in the past

Preferably move content to History and Variants sections. 5.173.48.191 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeinformation incorrect

Yesterday I was part of an Interview with Alexander Müller the Defencecouncil of the german Free Democratic Party (FDP). He is part of the German Military IT Center and revealed to us, that the range of the ATACMS is not 300km. He responded to a previous question mentioning the 300 km range of the missile with "[...] But the range is not 300km. I cannot tell you the exact number, since that is classified military information, but it is around half of it." (Free translation). There are no recordings nor protocols of that interview but the room was filled with around 50 people. EditorF1 (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten year test

The Ukraine section is gathering blow by blow minutia. I advise editors to ask themselves this per WP:10YT "In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant?" (Hohum ^@) 21:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally - it will not make sense in just a few years - BeingObjective (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about ATACMS nothing more

I think when adding a lot of secondary information - consideration that this article is about a missile and its capabilities is important. Examples of its usage in a conflict are of interest - but can quickly become very NPOV with hints of PUFFERY and an agenda. I comprehend the motivation - and trying to comply with the 'original tag' - which I think I removed - is the primary goal -- citing detailed Ukrainian successes with the technology seem to be very NOT NPOV and not encyclopedic. BeingObjective (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current version - it is fairly balanced and should not age quickly BeingObjective (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a separate article for Ukraine

The Ukraine section is getting excessive again. We had this problem once before where people kept adding garbage to Ukraine section and it got too big. This article is not for specific news and uses inside Ukraine.

I think Ukraine's use of ATACMS has generated unprecedented interest in this weapon and needs its own article. There is enough information to merit such an article. Ms372 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300 or so words is hardly excessive. I doubt it warrants its own article, but we do need to trim out anything that isn't directly about the weapon. (Hohum ^@) 19:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive according to whom/what? It looks fine to me both now, and in the diff you said was "too big" earlier. This doesn't even scratch the top 10 for ordnance articles with the most detail on usage. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove well-sourced content, from the Ukraine section without discussion, Ms372. There's no consensus here agreeing with your take that it's too large; nor would that be a reason to be remove relevant, well-sourced content. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]