Talk:SADARM

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not 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

(First comments)

Removed the past tense references - if it was used in combat in OIF then evidently at least some were put into service. Riddley 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear if it's in service or not. I think they just had a few dozen of the original rounds in warehouses, and they happened to get shipped. I think once they were gone, then that was it. Megapixie 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's something like that - see this link [1] - Quote: "Due to affordability issues, the SADARM is currently not produced. Production could begin immediately if necessary." Riddley 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's contributions on expanding the stub I created! :D --T e rran command e r 09:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(section deletion)

I removed the section on program "cancellation" because obviously no such thing occurred. The rounds have been given an M- rather than XM- designation, have been used in combat and have been doctrinally adopted to the force - techniques for use have been published in field manuals and so on. Whether they are currently in production is irrelevant because specialized antiarmor rounds are useless in the current conflict - if we expected a stand-up fight against armored forces we would procure as many as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.131.176 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

smart EFP submunitions?

So, this system uses smart EFP munitions? Are they similar to the ones used in the CBU102 cluster munition, then? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]