Talk:M982 Excalibur#Requested move 9 June 2025

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Weaponry=yes|US-task-force=yes|Weaponry-task-force=yes|European-task-force=yes}}

{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=Low}}

}}

Accuracy Comparison

When I was in the artillery we seldom if ever corrected "dumb" fire by more than 150 - 200 meters (commonly much less), is there a source for the 400 meter claim in the article? Is US artillery really that poor? Usrnme h8er 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I provided a source. Note that the 370meter provided in globalsecurity is perhaps for the "maximum distance" where the artillery is firing I assume. -- Esurnir 04:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference: `In contrast, standard U.S. 155 mm shells have a CEP of 200 to 300 m at moderate ranges.`; i think the article will be highly improve if someone check the artillery chart and give a precise distance (ex; 10 km) with a certain type of gun (ex: triple 7) and correspondant CEP on first round before FOO correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.83.183 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that source said 3 years ago, but today it says nothing of the sort in regards to the very high CEP number stated in the article. I have thus removed that sentence, as it seems odd and has no source. Pavuvu (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Need sources for the first operational usage

I just added the date of the first operational usage (may 23rd). I got it from [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112610&highlight=excalibur&page=3 here]. I'm sorry I can't find a better source yet :(. If someone could link the original article in the ref, that would be great ! -- Esurnir 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Every comment on Randy Meece in the overview is factual. This is not vandalism and I possess emails from Government POCs who complimented his performance in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotring3 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo of the first operational use is dubious at best. I think it depicts a GBU-38 500-pound JDAM, not an M982 :) And the link to hood.army.mil doesn't work either. Best regards, K.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.15.57 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Solution for Zumwalt-Class?

Could that stuff be a solution for the naval fire support requirements of the USMC?

--78.49.234.191 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands second european user after sweden?

{{quote|text=The Netherlands is the second Excalibur lb customer in Europe after Sweden, the U.S. government's development partner for the 155 mm round. Deliveries are expected to begin later this year.|source=http://www.asdnews.com/news-62799/Netherlands_Orders_Raytheon_Excalibur_Ib_Precision_Munitions,_Becomes_Second_European_Customer.htm}}

This is in contradiction with Germany listed in the current users list.

Wouter Halswijk 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

:As I am reading this, the map and text don’t match: map shows Germany, which is not listed. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to Raytheon-Bofors Excalibur

As the title says. An international name is preferred. Blockhaj (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested restructuring

I suggest that the article be re-organized with the sections (1) Design; (2) Procurement and production; (3) Use in combat. Right now, the use of the weapon in combat appears both in the Description and History sections, which is a bit confused. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Prone to GPS Jamming

I read multiple times now already and it seems to be consensus among military analysts that the Excalibur has a less than 5% accuracy down from 80% at the start of the war. This is apparently due to very effective GPS jamming on behalf of russia. Gewure (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2025

{{requested move/dated|Raytheon-Bofors Excalibur}}

:M982 Excalibur → {{no redirect|Raytheon-Bofors Excalibur}} – product name Blockhaj (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: I see "{{-r|Excalibur artillery projectile}}" and "{{-r|Excalibur projectile}}" in [https://web.archive.org/web/20080826110814/http://www.thelocal.se/13880/20080822/ one cited source]. The suggested name would probably be more properly punctuated with a dash, as {{-r|Raytheon–Bofors Excalibur}}. I don't see the dual-attribution name in any sources, although it does seem to make sense (and many articles use a "[Maker] [ModelName]" title format). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)