Talk:Otomat

I'm going to take a guess that this was converted from a French or Italian version of the same page in that language. Dotation is an obsolete word in the English language and I had to look it up as a native English speaker. Installation is what you are looking for there. While not incorrect many of the phrases here are very strange. I'd like to look at copy editing this article if it would not offend. Tirronan 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And i like to collaborate. Can you check the stuff that you don't like/understand and make me aware, ex. posting here, so having the original sources i can try to improving it?--Stefanomencarelli 15:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration is the name of the game here and you are most welcome to do so. Dotation in English could be applied here but it really is about investments towards a marriage in earlier times. Instead of Dotation I would use the word Installation having a more mechanical context which would be more relevent here. Tirronan 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Victor(from Key Publishing forum?),

1967 was a very interesting year for anti-ship missiles, so i don't rate unrelated at all the eventually born of OTOMAT as 'effect' given by Eilat sinking. It' unclear if the born of Exocet and Otomat was related or not to this battle, but this surely boosted the interest for these programs, and the next yers no less than five different missiles: Exocet, OTOMAT, Harpoon, Gabriel and Kormoran were put in service. While it's unclear if the 'start' was due to this event (surely not for Kormoran), there is no doubt that Styx acted a strong 'dimostration' about the power of anti-ship missiles.

Noticeable that already several of them were availables, but nobody cared: They were either SS-12 mini-missiles, fair but a bit weak, or URSS powerful but mysterious weapons. After this 'display' western world navies raised a lot their interest on this costly weapons.

So the whole history of anti-ship missiles, included OTOMAT, could had been a lot different without Eilat sinking, this is why i included this event in the description about OTOMAT origins.

Moreover, there is another reason. Eilat sinking was often dated during Six day war. While there is no problem either to rely this to the heavy 'cold war' between Israel and arabs, Six day war happened in June, while Eilat was sunk in October. Definitively, not in Six day war.

I have hoverauled the article, expecially reorganized the stuff in a more related manner. Now that i done my best i'll wait for eventual further suggestions. --Stefanomencarelli 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not from Key publishing. As for the sinking, the event in itself is important and my rewrite proposal acknowledges that. However sentences such as This happened in October, and not in June during the Six day war, as often reported. are not relevant to the Otomat article, you could just mention that it was in October 1967 and link to the relevant article, in this case HMS Zealous (R39). As for improvements, the article needs massive copyediting to improve its prose. Also, could you add page numbers to inline citations? --Victor12 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did my best to try and make this into a more readable format. Please read it over carefully as I might have changed something beyond your intent. It still needs a decent spell check. I hope this was helpful. Tirronan 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You did well.--Stefanomencarelli 09:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put a {{pagenumbers}} template on the Notes section, because currently inline citations on this article lack page numbers (check WP:CITE). Please don't remove it until all inline citations have page numbers. --Victor12 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Check now.--Stefanomencarelli 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't. You have added page numbers to the "References" section but you also need to add specific pages to the "Notes" section. Other readers need to be able to know from what part of these articles does your info come. --Victor12 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the first time i heard this. Frankly speaking, i think it's a bit too demanding. There are already the reference's pages, and a magazine article (10 pages max) is not exactly a book length one, so i don't think that this could add much more. Eventually i'll check this stuff lather.--Stefanomencarelli 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do, it's necessary for verifiability purposes. --Victor12 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I did it.--Stefanomencarelli 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, could you provide full references for the articles used? For instance, could you spell out abbreviations? IDR seems to be the Italian version of International Defense Review magazine, could you put its full name? If that's the case what's the original (Italian) name of the "Special coastal defences" issue? Also, please provide the volume and number of each issue. As for War machines encyclopedia, is it a book in English or in Italian? Could you provide an author or editor. --Victor12 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Be a bit calm, this is not a third grade.

1-No, RID is Rivista Italiana Difesa. 2-Number? It is monthly magazine. It does not have a number in strict sense. 3- No it's an encyclopedia. The italian edition was printed by De Agostini. This opera has a article in wikipedia.it, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armi_da_guerra where there is all the staff adapted english to italian (for i hope well comprensible reasons i have the traslation in italian) but this is still a british strictly opera (much easy to spot already in text), with minimum differences in text and zero in datas. The original printed by Limited publishing ltd. should be practically equal.

In every case, it' just a 'historical' source, useful because of this exists the english version. Her info are outdated now, but good enough when compared (in fact, practically always i checked the data differences i found it highly reliable).--Stefanomencarelli 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean, there are (very important) pages like AA-2 Atoll missile with exactly 0 (zero) sources/references, so here we are better fitted. Bear in mind that OTOMAT has almost nil bibliography compared to AA-2/AIM-9 stuff.--Stefanomencarelli 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've updated the reference section with info from the RID website. I've assumed 1982 = vol.1, 1983 = vol.2 and so on. I've also removed the War machines encyclopedia as it is not currently used in the article and added {{it icon}} to all of the others. BTW what's the Italian name for the "RID News" section? --Victor12 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got curious and went to the MBDA website to find out that they are still marketing the block IV version of the missile and it is in active service with 12 courtries. OTOMAT really never had much chance in with the US Navy as US ships normally operate under air cover and failing that can get sub support and satilite, or UAV, support in targeting information making the harpoon system ideal for the set of circumstances they work under. However it looks to me as if MBDA is still trying to sell OTOMAT and for countries with out huge budgets OTOMAT is probably a good answer. The US is at this time very close to deploying a very inexpesive cruise missile for land attack in conjuction with the US Navy's Littoral warfare thrust. Tirronan 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OTOMAT is still on market.

The real problem is that about market actually, almost all the exports were related to naval constructions made in Italy, like Lupos and Fincantieri corvettes (for Peru,Venezuela, Lybia, Egypt, Malaysia etc.). But actually Italy is practicall inactive in warshships sells, while many countries like S.Korea had a developed a full naval industry. So for them, just like happened to Japan, the problem is to fit their vessels with foreign weapon systems. If they wants 76 mm guns there is practically only OTO guns (for really absurd reasons, see Germay. UK.France.USA.Sweden: all them did not bothered to develop a 3 inc. gun that is simply the best choice for 400-1500 ton ships, so dozens missile boats made in other countries were fitted with italian guns).But about missiles, there are two well liked families, Exocet and Harpoons, both combat proof. So OTOMAT have not really much hopes. In the international market Harpoons and Exocet are widespread, and OTOMAT, hampered by the lack of sub-aero versions, is a powerful but not so liked weapon, perhaps also costlier. After all, SSN-22 is even more powerful, impressive, feared, but still not much selled.--Stefanomencarelli 15:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The surviving Kenya Navy ships that used to be fitted with this missile have been converted to OPV configuration without the missile launchers, thus Kenya is no longer an operator - both the table and map need to be updated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Outliner73: Do you have another source to support this. That looks very much like a news aggregator or a WP:SPS to me on the lines of IDR, IDRW and so on. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is reference where Italian Nnavy uses Teseo Mk2E for land attack with a rage twice >180 km.^[1]Outliner73 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: You are providing a link from the same source where I have clearly stated that the source itself does not meet WP:RS. Do you have an alternate source which clearly states that this missile has been modified as a land attack missile. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the defence newspaper.Outliner73 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What is a defense news paper? Please take this to WP:RSN if you think that this meets WP:RS requirements. Do not add this back until this issue is resolved. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

^[2] do you want more?Outliner73 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That source you provided does not make any mention of land-attack. (I used google translate) Do you have one which does? Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

i can look for more sorurces but yoiu are becoming boring.First one is more than good.Outliner73 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

^[3]Outliner73 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

if you've nothing to add i i update.i can't set here 100 references.Outliner73 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the source makes no mention of land attack. Please provide a WP:RS which clearly states land attack capability and mention the quote here since you do not seem to understand this concept. And this is not "boring". If you wish to add content, WP:PROVEIT or don't add it. It is very simple and please be patient. This will take time. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)