Talk:Mark 24 mine

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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
	World War II task force

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark 24 Mine merge

Concur -- this article is too short to stand alone. But the merged article should have a redirect from Mk 27 torpedo.Thewellman (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No -- This is a different weapon to FIDO; and the idea of a stub is to let it grow. What is the fascination with merging articles on different subjects together? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First success

According to the current article, it speculates whether U640 or U657 was the first sunk by a Mk.24 Mine. According to uboat.net, U657 was sunk by HMA Swale. So I suspect this option can be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.177 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; there is some confusion over which boat was sunk on 14th, by the Catalina, and which on 17th, by Swale. I've re-written the opener to reflect that. Kemp also refers to U-456 as the first U-boat sunk by FIDO, so I've put that in, too. And uboatnet is actually quite equivocal on the matter, saying here; "The first confirmed FIDO sinking...occurred 14 May ...and sank U-640 with a MK24 torpedo [more probable is that the first victim was the U-657 on May 17 - Editor]". Xyl 54 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Successful but order reduced?

"Initially 10,000 torpedoes were ordered, but FIDO proved so effective that the order was reduced to 4,000." That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone reduce an order for a successful weapon? Is the word "effective" meant to be "expensive"? 121.209.71.44 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. What I take from this is that they expected to get one hit for every, say, 10 of these used (which means a lot would be needed) but experience showed that they got one hit for every 4 used. Hence to get the same number of hits, fewer of these were needed. FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 24 mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060224092332/http://www.navytorpedo.com/html/legacy/USNT4.htm to http://www.navytorpedo.com/html/legacy/USNT4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]