Talk:RARDEN

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry

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 land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

As far as I remember it RARDEN actually stands for:

Royal Armaments Research & Development, ENfield. Ian Dunster 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that - I also note that some don't use all caps but have "Rarden" as for Sten GraemeLeggett 15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also often see it as "Rarden" and have been told that it's not an acronym.Jrssr5 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a made up name, rather than an acronym. However, the EN would have come from the RSAF Enfield and RARD may have come from RARDE - Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment.Pyrotec 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Use

As a former user I can remember back in the late 70's early 80's they were fitted to ships. I seem to remember small patrol craft pictures with them mounted on the front and also possibly the RN had some fitted after the Falklands ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to the DES/MSI 30B L75. I am trying to unearth more information on this HLGallon (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they were available some units in the RN like the minesweepers in '80s.

Proper name

Is it RARDEN or Rarden? Is it both? Currently, both are used very inconsistently here and elsewhere. TaintedMustard (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T-62 ko's?

From frontal shots. Is it even credible? T-62 has 100 mm at 60°, it seems to me really a bit too much (not even a 83 mm APDS can KO's a T-62 in a reliable manner).