Talk:Multiple rocket launcher

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


Incorrect Title[edit]

A rocket is used to bring things into space, a missile is used to shoot at enemy troops on a battle field. The name of the page should be multiple missile launcher.

Untitled[edit]

Of course the Koreans invented MMRLs. They invented everything! Anyone want to put a citation there? Therealhazel (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

please put this somewhere else FOR EXAMPLE THE IN A SUBJECT(Undeadplatypus (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC))

References?[edit]

Recently the "References" section has been added, and the only reference mentioned in it is another article in "Wikipedia". Is that correct, under current policies??
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

MLRS Redirect[edit]

I have added an offer for redirection to the M270 article, because "Multiple Launch Rocket System" (MLRS) currently points here. IMO MLRS should point directly to the M270, but perhaps there is reason for it pointing here that I am unaware of. Ddcorkum (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Further note: a similar redirect has existed before because the acronym "MLRS" pointed here at the time. I see that "MLRS" now points to the M270, but the unabreviated "Multiple Launch Rocket System" continues to point here. Ddcorkum (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Multiple rocket launcher[edit]

There are some reason why the Chinese devices cannot be regarded as ancestor of the modern Multiple rocket launcher:

They were single-wheeled cart equiped with blades and spikes, which were fired on the move during a massive rush of Chinese footsoldiers towards enemies. They were merely devices to shoot a compilation of the multiple gunpowders using in the close range combat. That is why they were very different from the Korean Hwacha, which were used as long distance multiple rockets against enemies. And I also suspect that the Chinese divice that was older than Korean Hwacha, called "Huo Che" indeed.

Bluezora (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Chinese device is indeed the first multiple rocket launcher. It was not only used as described. The Ming Shilu records the Huoche being used by Ming loyalists to defend against massive cavalry charges from Yongle's army and to defend strategic points. Yang Hong (one of the foremost experts in Chinese gunpowder weapons) estimates the range of the Huoche to have been in the vicinity of 200 metres in his authoritative book "Weapons in Ancient China".

Please provide any source that the Chinese device was once called HuoChe in history. Judging from the images from the Wu Bei Zhi, the Chinese device cannot be a multiple rocket launcher but at best a device for shooting something using gunpowder with no trajectory. Anyway, there could have been existed a Chinese device operated at distances the range of 200 metres, whether it was a rocket launcher or not, developed and used in China during the Ming or Qing dynasty. Koryosaram (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO6I5OZpRDI&t=124 (2601:646:C100:4F00:C8DD:7A8D:36C7:410A (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

So what's the difference then? if Huo Che provide direct line of fire then what would they be classed as? I hesitate to put them into IFV category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.250.82 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

TOS-1[edit]

Technically, TOS-1, aka Buratino (Russian equivalent of Pinocchio) is a fire-thrower. Leo (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. A flamethrower projects a flame or a flammable liquid. TOS-1 launchesr rockets that (in one type) contain flammable liquids, disperse and ignite it. The Russians call both the same, but this is not the case in English. Lastdingo (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Is there anything in this article that isn't properly covered in rocket artillery? All of these systems are rocket artillery, and most rocket artillery systems have been multiple. The distinction (single/multiple) isn't a useful one, and the terminology of this article is obviously confusing with the M270. I suggest merging. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)