Talk:Sabot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Shoe question

I don't want to hold up the whole encyclopedia and talk page if I'm wrong, but . . . isn't a sabot a kind of shoe? Wiwaxia 08:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The meaning in ballistics is derived from the "shoe" meaning, since the filler around the projectile can be thought of as a "shoe" that the projectile wears.

UninvitedCompany 15:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I edited the article to include a mention of the wooden shoe and the word 'sabotage'. The shoe probably deserves an article of its own at some point. --Jack

[edit] Pronunication

I think it's pronounced "sa-bow", but I've also heard people say it phonetically. I don't know how to do that IPA stuff, which is the preferred Wikipedia style for pronunciations... anybody want to take a crack at it?

I always thought it was "say-bow". Jigen III 08:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with APDS?

Both articles have good information and diagrams, but you're talking about the same thing as far as I can tell. Please consider a merge. Dhatfield (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No merge. This article is about sabots generally, as used for many different projectiles. The other article is about a particular type of sabot round. The latter (together with other particular types) is already linked from Sabot in the "See also" section. This is a perfectly acceptable arrangement – it's like having an article for "motor vehicle", with subsidiary ones for particular types or makes. There is not enough room in the Sabot article to cover them all to a reasonable level of detail. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your perspective, I was only aware of APDS as a use of sabot ammunition. From the perspective of someone referencing this topic (such as, from Tank) to list Sabot, APDS and APFSDS / KEP to get proper coverage of the subject is excessive. The fact that some of your pictures are better than the ones on those respective pages (and that others are duplicates) doesn't help. One longer article that covered all three aspects (the sabot as well as the penetrator) would be preferable from my perspective. Dhatfield (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)