text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.U.C.K.

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

F.U.C.K.
Not notable and vanity entry Brookie 17:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Wincoote 21:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Spinboy 23:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 00:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, forget their name, it's a cover band. Wyss 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Pointless page. Oleg Alexandrov 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * D.E.L.E.T.E. —RaD Man (talk) 02:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE band vanity. Simon 18:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn, vanity.  GRider\talk 00:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Caro–Kann Defence

Classical variation
About this, in the Classical Variation:

 * Typically the black light-squared bishop is a problematic piece in that it has little mobility and can be confined to the awkward-looking h7 square after for example 6. h4 h6 7. h5 Bh7. Black will therefore seek to trade it off.

I don't play the Caro-Kann, so I may be missing something, but isn't the main line here 8.Nf3 Nf6 (or 8...Nd7) 9.Bd3, thus trading off the very piece which, according to the article, Black wants to get rid of? Strikes me that something is wrong here. --Camembert

 * You're right. The light squared bishop is hardly a liability and the white plan to trade it off is practically automatic now. --Malathion 5 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Again in the Classical Variation:

 * Should things proceed to an endgame, Black often stands well thanks to his solid pawn structure and king-side pawn majority.

I agree that the h5 pawn is weak, but otherwise I've been taught that a queen-side majority, rather than a king-side one, is an advantage in the endgame.Mbjoker 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Time-wasting
From ''The Caro-Kann! In Black and White'' by Alexander Beliavsky and Anatoly Karpov:

Karpov on pg 153 says "The h5 pawn ties down the black kingside" and later says white has a "space advantage". Beliavsky writes that this "paralyzing" effect is "especially meaningful in the endgame". I don't think in makes sense to say that the h5 pawn push "develops nothing". --Malathion 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Correct but missing the point. Do Karpov or Beliavsky write that the Black moves ...h6 and ...Bh7 are time wasting? I don't have that book but I suspect that they don't. If there's no expert source that uses that sort of description, it can't go in the article. If there is a reliable reference, it can stay. Quale 8 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

 * Do you have a reference (or even any reason to believe) that those move accomplish anything beneficial besides protecting the bishop from getting trapped? --Malathion 8 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

 * Clearly that is the only reason Black plays those moves, but that doesn't make them "time-wasting," IMO. "Time-wasting" implies pointless moves. If White developed his Q-side instead of playing h4-h5 and Black played ...h6 and ...Bh7 anyway, THAT would be time-wasting. I agree that h4-h5 benefits White more than ...h6 and ...Bh7 benefit Black (that's why W usually throws in those moves before playing Bd3), but IMO that doesn't make Black's moves "time-wasting."  Krakatoa 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

 * I changed the text to refer to a "king-side pawn bind that may be useful in an endgame." (Shades of Han Kmoch's "quartgrip" in Pawn Power in Chess.) I think this may capture what Karpov and Beliavsky said better than "time-wasting." See what you think. Note that this passage is now in some tension with the sentence in the next paragraph about how Black "usually" (I changed this to "often") does well if an endgame is reached. Maybe that sentence should be changed some more. Also, is it accurate to suggest that Black often leaves his king in the center? I'm not sure whether that's accurate. It might be; I'm not a great authority on this opening. I think there was a game where Beliavsky beat Larsen like a drum when his king stayed in the center too long. Krakatoa 9 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

 * Sorry Malathion, what I wrote had a more combative tone than I intended. My point is that Black's ...h6 and ...Bh7 are in response to direct threats by White.  I think the benefit of avoiding loss of a piece alone makes the moves not a waste of time.  White's purpose is to gain space, not time.  The problem I had with the time wasting language is that it makes it sound like White wins by force, when in fact I think the variation is rather drawish.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on the Caro-Kann, but my impression is that Black usually avoids 4...Bf5 and the Classical Variation not so much out of a fear that White is too likely to win; it's just that it's too hard for Black to win.  White has a safe position and will win or draw--Black's chances to win in this variation are practically nil unless White overextends.  I understand that MCO-14 is a few years old now, but it says this about the Classical Variation: "White can obtain a small kingside bind by advancing his pawn to h5, but to exploit this is a difficult task.  A problem with 4...Bf5 is the lack of winning chances against reasonable play by White."  MCO-14 then contrasts 4...Nd7 as favored by Karpov saying that its current popularity (as of 1999) is due to the double-edged positions that arise.  Of course we should record whatever the current thinking is on the Classical V., and it may have changed and I wouldn't know. Quale 9 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)

 * All of what Quale just said, and the quote from MCO-14, make a lot of sense to me. If you're Beliavsky, you might be able to squeeze out an endgame win by virtue of the extra space gained by h4-h5.  If you're a lesser mortal, or probably even a lesser GM, probably not -- and I'll bet even Beliavsky fails to win most of the time against GM's who play 4...Bf5. And yes, 4...Nd7! is the way to play. When I played the Caro-Kann, that's what I played.  I never lost a Caro-Kann, even against masters who were stronger than I. (Although now that I think about it, in one of those master games (against Marvin Dandridge) I stupidly played 4...Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 without knowing what I was doing, although I managed to scrounge a draw anyway. Krakatoa 9 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

 * No problem about combative language. I was an avid CK player for many years. You two have given me a decent amount to respond to so I'll try to keep this organized.

 * I think the "time wasting" comment is okay, but I'm also satisfied with the current edit, so I am not disputing this any longer.
 * Saying that the Petrosian-Smyslov (as Karpov and Beliavsky call it in their book) is "the way to play" might be a bit specious. Leko played the main line against Kramnik and drew. Anand and Bareev have also figured prominently as a common CK main line players in recent history. Leko even beat Topalov with it in 2002. To be more concrete, my database (using the same restrictions as before: Both players rated over 2500 and within the last 5 years) shows that the main line appeared in 375 games. White wins 22% Draw 59% Black wins 19%. The Nd7 line appeared in 126 games. White wins 24% Draw 59% Black wins 17%. So really, it seems fine to say that the Nd7 line is sound, and certainly works well for you, but I would not agree with Wikipedia preferring it. Strong master level players don't prefer it at all, and I think we should regard their opinions and experience as more relevant than our own. Imo, Wikipedia should not make a preferetial judgment of any kind between these lines.
 * In response to Karatoka's query:  Also, is it accurate to suggest that Black often leaves his king in the center? Yes, to my surprise. I searched my database for all main line games in the last ten years with players rated over 2500.
 * Out of 593 games, White wins 21%, draws 61%, Black wins 18%.
 * There were 329 games where black castled kingside. White wins 23%, draws 55%, Black wins 22%.
 * There were 140 games where black castled queenside. White wins 25%, draws 60%, Black wins 15%.
 * There were 124 games where black did not castle at all. White wins 12%, draws 78% (!), Black wins 10%. --Malathion 9 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the stats. You selected games that meet the standards that give interesting numbers--recent games by very strong players.  Although 4...Bf5 has been played since around 1900, only experience in the last 5-20 years is helpful to try to figure out where the line is now, so using 5 and 10 years as filter criteria is good.  It's interesting that Black wins more often with Bf5 than Nd7 since MCO-14 suggests that it expects the reverse.  Maybe those numbers were different when De Firmian was writing MCO-14 or perhaps he had a mistaken impression.  One of the things about the single volume opening books (MCO, NCO, BCO) is that coverage of the individual openings is of varying quality depending on the authors' knowledge and interests.  Perhaps the Caro-Kann isn't a specialty of De Firmian or his collaborators.  (And all the printed volumes are 5+ years old too.) Quale 04:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks for the stats, Malathion. Interesting. My remark about 4...Nd7 being the "way to play" just reflected my own good results with it in a small number of games. I certainly wasn't suggesting that that should be the official Wikipedia verdict. Krakatoa 06:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Exchange Variation
The text says that the Panov-Botvinnik Attack "often leads to wildly tactical play thanks to the open diagonals and rapid White development. It is often thought that this type of play scores exceptionally well against the Caro-Kann . . . ." I am doubtful about the accuracy of this, and have two questions. First, I'm no great expert on the Panov-Botvinnik, but is it accurate to say that it "often leads to wildly tactical play"? That's not my impression. Second, can't someone check ChessBase and find out whether the P-B A actually "scores exceptionally well against the Caro-Kann"? Again, rightly or wrongly, that's not my impression -- but in any event we ought in this age of huge chess databases to be able to find out whether the P-B A really does score exceptionally well, instead of talking about what is "often thought" (by whom?) on that subject.

 * In my ChessBase database (Mega 2005), in all games after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 where both players were rated higher than 2500, white wins 23%, draws 62%, and loses 15%. In the advance white wins 34%, draws 46%, and loses 20%. In the main line (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5) white wins 34%, draws 39%, loses 27%. So it would seem that at the master level, the Panov is the most drawish of the available lines. --Malathion 9 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

 * Thanks. In light of your ChessBase research (hope my reliance on it doesn't violate the dreaded NOR guideline or policy or whatever it is), I've taken out the stuff about the Panov-Botvinnik being the sharpest line and being thought to score exceptionally well, and added statements about it being drawish at top levels and scoring less well than 3.e5. I left in the stuff about the open diagonals and rapid white development, which someone else can ax if appropriate. Krakatoa 9 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

I would say that it is not wild, but dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzlesbrony777 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

4... Nd7 Variation Name
Is this variation definitively called the Smyslov Variation? MCO-14 and NCO have no particular name for this line, while Chessgames.com, Gameknot.com, and a number of other online sources call it the Steinitz Variation. -- Gestrin 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently somebody wrote a whole book entitled "CARO-KANN: SMYSLOV SYSTEM 4...ND7". However, variations can have several names, so if you have sources giving alternate names, by all means put it in. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The List of chess openings page, with sources, gives it as the Steinitz variation as well. Given that "Steinitz Variation" is the official ECO name, I'm changing the article to include both names for this variation. -- Gestrin 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very late to this party, but does anyone know why 4...Nd7 is sometimes called the Steinitz Variation? Steinitz thought the Caro-Kann was a junk opening and AFAIK never played it. FWIW, the first game chessgames.com has with 4...Nd7 is a Nimzowitsch game from 1913, by which time Steinitz had been pushing up daisies for over a decade. Krakatoa (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have looked with Google, can't find anything about why it was called the Steinitz Variation other then the obvious it was named after Steinitz. SunCreator (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the 1980s, I played 4....Nd7 a few times, but don't remember seeing a game where Steinitz tried it, either. At least the Rubinstein Variation (4.e3) vs the Nimzo-Indian was actually played once by Rubinstein! Hushpuckena (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

canonical position in main diagram?
I used the opening template to illustrate the opening here. However, I see a minor dilemma. The formal designation of the opening is based on the position after Black's first move. However, in popular parlance, it de facto begins after Black's second move; deviations from d-pawn moves on either player's second move are sometimes referred to as irregular king pawn or irregular semiopen games etc., i.e., not a Caro-Kann. I tried to split the difference by noting the second move position in the diagram, while noting formally that the opening consists of just the first moves.

I would not mind anyone who is more current than me on opening nomenclature (beyond my MCO 1983 ed) having a look and changing the moves in the template (or affirming them here) accordingly. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the position after 1.e4 c6 as the main diagram. The reason is that 1.e4 c6 is more general, 2.d4 d5 is most usual, but White can deviate with 2.Nc3 or 2.d3, and it is still a Caro-Kann. While it is true that deviations from 2...d5 can lead over to other openings (in particular the Pirc Defence or Modern Defence), 2...d5 is not necessary, one can play the Caro-Kann while abstaining from that move. According to Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, codes B10 to B19 are devoted by the Caro-Kann. The most general of these chapters B10 is defined only by 1.e4 c6, while an opening sequence like 1.e4 c6 2.d4 e5 goes under code B12, still in the ten chapters devoted to the Caro-Kann. True, the opening can transpose to something else, Pirc, Modern or even the Nimzo-Indian(!), but this is less serious than neglecting the possibility for 2.d3 or 2.Nc3. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I will edit the template accordingly.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I came across a page called Caro-Kann Defense Quick Checkmates. I suggest that page should be merged into this article. Bluewave (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Caro-Kann Defense Quick Checkmates is not an encyclopedia article and certainly cannot stand as it does now. I am in fact tempted to recommend the article be deleted, but the miniature, Reti-Tartakower is at least quite famous, even though White's line is not really the critical one. The smothered mate Alekhine demonstrates is also often used as an illustration of that theme, although 5.Qe2?! is really just playing for a cheapo and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of harmonious development. Since the red tape and bureaucracy involved in merging is less than what is required in deletion, I'm OK with merging in some, if not all the content, but it should not be a copy-paste job. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Merge to Checkmates_in_the_opening. SunCreator (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes that may indeed be a better location. --Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no strong opinion on what happens to it...I came on it more as a reader, looking for help with the Caro-Kann, than as an editor. It just looked like an orphan in need of a better home (or no home at all, maybe). Merging here looked plausible, and I thought it would give people who have an opinion the chance to express it. I'll leave it to you guys to decide what to do with it. Bluewave (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I'm with SunCreator on this one. Hushpuckena (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 * merge. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The content started out in Checkmate, and was later broken out into Checkmates_in_the_opening. At some point, someone broke it out further into Caro-Kann Defense Quick Checkmates. I agree with SunCreator that it should go back into Checkmates_in_the_opening. Krakatoa (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ECO section clarification
Under the ECO section, B12, two variations are arrived at through the same moves. Shouldn't white's 4th move be added to distinguish the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Maroczy Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
 * 2) Fantasy/Lilienfisch Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3

Does anyone have a reference for the name: "Lilienfisch Variation". I have found it repeated all over the net, but Lilienfisch has never played this variation! I presume they have all copied it from wikipedia. I believe no one calls this anything other than The Fantasy Variation. In the article the variation is also called The Tartakower Variation, which makes some sense as Tartakower has player this in 6 games, but I also believe no one really uses this name for the variation. Is The Maroczy Variation the continuation: 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 ?, Maroczy has played this continuation twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.160.234 (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Any non-internet sources for the name "Mindeno Variation"?
I couldn't find this name in a google books search. The well-known Noteboom-Mindeno game was included in Chernev's "1000 Best Short Games of Chess" and "The Bright Side of Chess" but I couldn't find any printed references that use the name "Mindeno Variation" for the common move 3...Bg4. I find it difficult to believe that an obscure Dutch player was the first person to play it. If this is an "internet name" I don't think it should be used in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything in my books. Looks like it's been named based on the 1927 game but has no real credibility as a proper name. Nothing substantial to justify it. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillbilly Attack
Obviously the name "Hillbilly" in reference to the 2. Bc4 line isn't a politically correct one but it is in use. Checking my Chessmaster 10th edition, it does appear under that name in the program's opening book. A Google search also pulls up some comments about its early days. It looks like it has been written about in printed form, "Chess Horizons"and "Randspringer" named as having published articles on it some time ago. The name was translated from the German "Hinterwäldler Angriff". I'm posting this here in light of the edit-warring taking place today. It's clearly a valid name. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See This thread at NPOV noticeboard. Also Edit Warring Noticeboard. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added Watson source, and another one. Left comment at notice board. - DVdm (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Kann-Mieses game
The article notes an "impressive" 17-move Kann victory over Mieses in Hamburg, 1885.

However, there's no victory in the image - and the link suggests a 24-move game.

Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.102.178 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Game results graphic
The graphic in the 'Other Lines' section is confusing. It says 3.d4 is the main line, but that is impossible since 2.d4 is the move before! I am not sure what it means but it needs altering/clarifying or removing. Knucmo2 (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Caro–Kann Defence


text:
Yankton College

Yankton College was a private liberal arts college in Yankton, South Dakota, United States, affiliated with the Congregational Christian Churches (later the United Church of Christ). Yankton College produced nine Rhodes Scholars, more than any other South Dakota higher education institution.

History
Founded in 1881, it was the first institution of higher learning in the Dakota Territory. The man primarily responsible for the college's establishment was Joseph Ward, a local pastor and educator who is one of the two South Dakotans represented in the National Statuary Hall.

Yankton College produced nine Rhodes Scholars.

Yankton College closed in December 1984, and its campus became the site of Federal Prison Camp, Yankton, which opened four years later.

Campus
The campus was declared the Yankton College Historic District in 1982 due to the presence of a group of buildings designed by architect George Grant Elmslie. Between 1927 and 1932, Elmslie designed seven structures for the college, of which several were built:
 * Campus Library (1927/1928)
 * Forbes Hall of Science (1929)
 * Look Chapel, project (1929)
 * Power plant (1930)
 * Look Dormitory for Men (1931)
 * Conservatory of Music (1932)
 * Gymnasium, project (1932)

The college's athletic teams were known as the Greyhounds. The football stadium (Crane–Youngworth Field) is now used as the home field for the Yankton High School Bucks and Mount Marty University Lancers football teams.

Yankton College began football in 1894. In 1917 they became one of the charter members of the South Dakota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. From 1960 to 1980 Yankton competed in the Tri-State Conference with private schools in Iowa and Nebraska. Yankton returned to the SDIAC in 1981, remaining until the school closed. The most successful seasons were as members of the Tri-State.

Notable alumni

 * Lyle Alzado, former National Football League All-Pro defensive lineman.
 * Rich Bisaccia, former interim head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders of the National Football League.
 * Gabor Boritt, the Robert Fluhrer Professor of Civil War Studies and Director of the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College
 * Joseph H. Bottum, 27th Lieutenant Governor of South Dakota and a member of the United States Senate
 * Amanda Clement (1888–1971), first paid female umpire
 * Riley Gardner, psychologist
 * Les Goodman, former running back in the National Football League
 * Alvin Hansen, Harvard College economics professor
 * David P. Hardy, co-founder Boys’ Latin of Philadelphia Charter School
 * Michael Jaffe, TV and film producer
 * Fred Kirschenmann, professor and leader in the sustainable agriculture movement.
 * Nancy Lenehan, American actress
 * Ruben Mendoza, strength and conditioning coach and a former guard in the National Football League
 * Earl Rose, Dallas County medical examiner at the time of the assassination of John F. Kennedy
 * Dean Wink, former defensive end in the National Football League and member of the South Dakota House of Representatives

title: Yankton College


text:
Lynne Ewing

Lynne Ewing is an American author and screenwriter who has written 24 young adult novels, including the Daughters of the Moon, Sons of the Dark, and the Sisters of Isis series. Her books have been translated into seven languages.

Her first book, Drive-By (1996), was an ALA Quick Pick for Reluctant Young Adult Readers and a New York Public Library Book for the Teen Age. The book also received the 1999 Arizona Young Readers Award. Her second book, Party Girl (1999), was an ALA Quick Pick for Reluctant Young Adult Readers, an Amazon Editor's Choice, and a Teen People recommended read. The book was adapted into a film titled Living the Life.

Her book The Lure (2014) was an ALA In the Margins 2015 top-ten title for Youths in Custody. In a review of the novel, which she rated as appropriate for high school–age students, Coats compared The Lure to The Outsiders, arguing that "circumstances [of the characters in The Lure] are raw to the power of ten compared to that book".

In a 2012 study, Guerra concluded that Drive-By and Party Girl, among a number of other titles, were likely to "engage" reluctant readers among youth at risk for incarceration.

Lehtonen discusses Goddess of the Night (2000), the first volume of the Daughters of the Moon series, in a study of young adult fiction. Lehtonen observes that Goddess of the Night uses the magical power of invisibility as a means to explore the "empowerment" of Vanessa Cleveland, the novel's main character.

Ewing is a member of Sisters in Crime and the Mystery Writers of America. She divides her time between Washington, D.C., Montreal and Lyon, France.

Books

 * Drive-By (HarperCollins, 1996)
 * Party Girl (Random House, 1999)
 * Daughters of the Moon (Disney Hyperion, 2000–2007)
 * Sons of the Dark (Disney Hyperion, 2004–2005)
 * Sisters of Isis (Disney Hyperion, 2007–2008)
 * The Lure (HarperCollins, 2014)

title: Lynne Ewing


text:
User talk:Jessrox~enwiki

--Jessrox 17:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)Jessrox was one of the most fammous children of all time. She was the most intelligent, kind, caring, funny, loved child in all of Loughborough. She grew up in loughborough

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jessrox. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jessrox~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jessrox~enwiki


text:
Bywater

Bywater may refer to:

People

 * Bywater (surname), an uncommon British surname

Places

 * Bywater, New Orleans, a neighborhood of New Orleans, Louisiana, United States

 * In Fiction
 * In J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy world of Middle-earth:
 * Bywater (Middle-earth), a village in the Shire

Other uses

 * Bywater BASIC, a programming language

title: Bywater


text:
User:ToriaURU

Hi My name is Deb - I'm from Ottawa area Canada - try to help out where I can.

I have Asperger's syndrome and so do my 2 daughters. So, I am actively trying to promote authors and books that help break down the mysteries that surround Aspergers.

title: User:ToriaURU


text:
User talk:EVILEYEZ

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article EVILEYEZ may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects.

 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:EVILEYEZ


text:
User:Cfp

Natural languages

Other accounts

Other

I am Tom Holden. I have a BA in Mathematics and Philosophy and an MPhil in Economics from The University of Oxford, and am currently studying for a DPhil in Economics there. For a year after graduation I worked as a programmer for Criterion Games.

Contact me on my talk page or e-mail me.

I have accounts on most English language projects.

Below are some of my favourite images that I have uploaded to Commons (I still have a load more to upload when I get round to it):

I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

title: User:Cfp


text:
Talk:Low-probability-of-intercept radar

 * One of the major characteristics of an LPI radar is that is has small side lobes?

Is this really correct? However big the side lobes are, the main lobe should always be several dBs stronger, which makes it the most probable part of the radar signal to detect. Could someone please explain the sentence above?

europrobe 17:44, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

My understanding is: This is not to say you must have small side-lobes to create an LPI radar, but rather that the minimisation of side-lobes contributes to making a radar more difficult to detect. I don't have a degree in electrical engineering though so if you do you almost certainly know better than I do. Nvinen 23:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Minimising side-lobes allows the use of lower total power for the same sensitivity. In addition, signal processing can become somewhat easier.
 * Larger side-lobes increase the chance of detection by objects not being tracked in the main part of the beam. You can't avoid radiation reaching the target(s) being tracked but you can hopefully avoid it being detectable from other locations which may contain sensitive instruments.
 * Side-lobes are effectively wasted energy and only contribute to the detectable signature, not the resolution or detection capabilities of the radar.

"If the sidelobe clutter is effectively a much larger scattering center than the mainlobe airborne target, then the detection process could easily produce a type II error and the threat target will go unreported. One approach to rejecting clutter competing with mainlobe targets is to lower the sidelobes of the antenna to the point where unwanted interference is suppressed to below the thermal noise floor of the receiver. Then only mainlobe clutter will remain, and these unwanted returns can be rejected by Doppler processing." http://www.prometheus-inc.com/asi/algebra2003/papers/wicks.pdf

This suggests that if you can cut sidelobes you can reject clutter better, which to me suggests that you may be able to get away with using lower power levels for scanning, for example. It seems that from what I'm reading, the main reason for reducing side-lobes is to prevent radar characterisation for jamming.

Here's a quote, although it's pretty non-specific and sounds like a sales pitch:

"[The Master-S radar's] advanced design features including a low-peak-power distributed solid-state transmitter and an ultra-low-sidelobes antenna, make Master-S a highly survivable radar – as hard to jam as it is to detect." http://www.armedforces-int.com/category.asp?pubID=15&catID=874

Possibly the wording of the article is bad. Maybe it should say "modern LPI radars also tend to have small side-lobes"? Nvinen 00:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a rephrasing something like the one above would be appropriate. Most often, interception of radars is aimed at search radars, where the main lobe will (nearly) always be the highest strength signal to look for. True enough, radar designs tend to minimize side and back lobes, but this is primarily to reduce clutter and vulnerability to jamming, and to lower the power requirements. Interception of fire control radars is usually only done to determine if you are being tracked or not, and if you are, it's the main lobe that's pointing at you anyway.

europrobe 18:35, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I think you're mostly correct but I feel that one of the important advantages of an LPI radar for a fighter aircraft is to make it harder for people to notice that you're looking for them. I imagine fighter pilots spend a fair bit of time in track-while-scan modes (I know I do in flight simulators), always on the lookout for new threats and targets. Your radar typically scans a sort of distorted cone in front of you, anyone in that cone is swept with your radar as you search that space. However, I believe it is still possible for people outside that cone to detect your radar and know that you are there, and they may even be able to determine the type of radar and therefore the type of aircraft you are flying, by your radar characteristics. This is invaluable information to anyone who may be threatened by you. What's more, people who are not in your frontal cone may threaten you seriously because they could approach with their radar off, homing in on your radiation, and attack you at close range without you noticing. This is the main reason that I was suggesting that reducing side-lobes is helpful from an LPI point of view - in order to virtually guarantee that if anyone is detecting your radar, you are also detecting them. Granted, side-lobes are usually a lot lower strength than the main part of the beam, but since you have to get returns off the targets to detect them (and thus get strength dropoff with something like distance ^ 4), they only have to pick up and analyse your energy after a one-way trip (something like distance ^ 2), then theoretically despite the lower power your sidelobes should be detectable at moderate ranges.

As I said, I'm not an EE, this is some conjecture based upon my knowledge of how fire control radars work and some high-school/college physics understanding, so I suppose we shouldn't make the article sound like I'm an absolute authority on this subject. Nvinen 22:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But what is the definition of Low Probablity of Intercept?
When is a radar LPI? How low must the antenna sidelobes be to be LPI. How low must the transmit power be? How wide must the frequency spectrum be? How much pulse compression must be used? How sophisticated must the waveform be? How many of the techniques must be used to be considered LPI? Can "LPI-ness" be measured?Is there a standard definition of Low Probability of Intercept?

Similar questions for Low Probabilty of Detection (LPD). --199.73.74.5 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)lkremer

LPI interception by ARIS
Should there be a mention of the ARIS-system of LPI interception: Link to Patria's ARIS page —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlOrbA (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 * For more on the math see: http://www.academypublisher.com/ijrte/vol01/no03/ijrte0103176180.pdf Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Low-probability-of-intercept radar


text:
TRX

TRX may refer to:

Transportation

 * Honda TRX250R, a 1980s ATV
 * Honda TRX450R, a 2000s and 2010s ATV
 * Michelin TRX, a car tire
 * Nissan Pintara TRX
 * TraXion, a defunct Danish railway company
 * Yamaha TRX850, a sports motorcycle
 * Ram 1500 TRX, a production model 4x4 performance truck from Stellantis

Other

 * Total prescriptions (TRx), see Pharmaceutical marketing
 * TRX, an identifier for Thioredoxin
 * TRX System, suspension training
 * Tun Razak Exchange, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 * Tron (cryptocurrency)

title: TRX


text:
The Hondells

The Hondells were an American surf rock band. Their cover of the Beach Boys' "Little Honda" went to No. 9 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1964.

History
The Hondells were a band manufactured by Gary Usher, originally consisting of session musicians. Their hit song, "Little Honda," was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love of The Beach Boys. The song was inspired by the popularity of Honda motor bikes in Southern California during the early 1960s: In contrast to the prevailing negative stereotypes of motorcyclists in America as tough, antisocial rebels, Honda's campaign suggested that their motorcycles were made for everyone. The campaign was successful; by the end of 1963 alone, Honda had sold 90,000 motorcycles. The Beach Boys had recorded "Little Honda" for their 1964 album All Summer Long, and subsequently producer Gary Usher gave former Castells vocalist Chuck Girard a copy of the All Summer Long LP and instructed him to learn "Little Honda."

Usher then recruited a group of studio musicians – including Glen Campbell, Al DeLory, Tommy Tedesco, and Richie Podolor – to record an album of Honda-related songs for Mercury Records, with production credited to Nick Venet, though Usher was the brains behind the record. Aside from "Little Honda," most of the songs on The Hondells' Go Little Honda album were written by Usher and KFWB disc jockey and lyricist Roger Christian. The album's cover showed a four-member group and its liner notes contained an elaborate back story, penned by Christian, which posited one Ritchie Burns as the founder and leader of the band. At the time the album was delivered, the name of the group had not been decided. Under consideration were two names: "The Rising Sons" and "The Hondells." Venet chose the latter and released "Little Honda" as a single under the new group name. As the song climbed the charts, Usher assembled a band to tour in support, and "Little Honda" eventually peaked at No. 9 on the U.S. pop singles chart.

Contrary to popular belief, session musician drummer Hal Blaine (creator of the name "The Wrecking Crew") was not the drummer on The Hondells' version of "Little Honda". The drummer on The Hondells' "Little Honda" was Wayne Edwards who together with Richard Burns (who played bass on the session and was cited on the album's liner notes as the band's "founder") went out on the road as part of the touring Hondells. Blaine played drums on The Super Stocks' "Little Honda" (produced by Gary Usher for Capitol) and on Pat Boone's version of the tune (produced by Terry Melcher as a single for Dot Records).

As soon as they saw The Hondells' version on the charts, Capitol Records released a single of their Beach Boys version and scored a minor hit as well.

The Hondells scored another modest hit single in 1966 with a cover of the Lovin' Spoonful song "Younger Girl" (Mercury 72562) before disbanding. Randy Thomas sang the lead.

The Hondells also recorded commercials for Pepsi and Coty Cosmetics. Musicians on these recordings were Ritchie Burns, Glen Campbell, Wayne Edwards, Dennis McCarthy, Randy Thomas, who sang the lead on the Pepsi commercial and Al Ferguson who sang the lead on the Coty commercial.

Gary Usher & Co.
Gary Usher continued to mine this genre of music with numerous 'bands' made up of session musicians doing one-off recordings. They were from the conglomerate of session musicians known as The Wrecking Crew, which had a rotating lineup of the same basic people. For instance, if Hal Blaine was not the drummer, then it was Earl Palmer. These fictional bands issued recordings as The Sunsets, The Four Speeds, Gary Usher and The Usherettes (aka: The Honeys), The Competitors, The Go-Go's, The Devons, The Ghouls, The Super Stocks, The Indigos, The Revells, The Kickstands and The Knights. Most of these have been re-issued on CD and are meticulously cataloged on Beach Boys fan sites.

Girard became a popular and pioneering CCM artist. Burns is the uncle of KCPR radio DJ and celebrity Biba Pickles.

Go Little Honda
The first LP, Go Little Honda featured 11 tracks in addition to "Little Honda," all with a motorcycle theme. Richie Podolor contributed two tracks, "Haulin' Honda" and "Black Boots and Bikes." Mike Curb - who also wrote the song for Honda's "You meet the nicest people on a Honda" campaign - wrote the track "Rip's Bike." The remaining tracks, written by Gary Usher and Roger Christian, consist of "Mean Streak," "A Guy Without Wheels," "The Wild One," "Hot Rod High," "Death Valley Run," "Two Wheel Show Stopper," "Ridin' Trails" and "Hon-Da Beach Party."

The Hondells
The group's second LP, titled simply The Hondells, was released only a few months after Go Little Honda. The LP yielded a Billboard 100 single, "My Buddy Seat," written by Brian Wilson and Gary Usher, backed with "You're Gonna Ride With Me," written by Usher and Roger Christian. Mike Curb wrote four songs that appear on the LP, "The Rebel (Without A Cause)," "The Lonely Rider," "Cycle Chase," and "The Sidewinder." The remaining tracks consisted of "Black Denim," "Night Rider," "My Little Bike," "Lay It Down," "He Wasn't Coming Back," and "Honda Holliday."

In film
The Hondells can be seen in three different feature-length films, all from 1965: AIP's Beach Blanket Bingo (shown performing "Cycle Set" and shown providing back up on "Fly Boy"); AIP's Ski Party (shown performing "The Gasser" and heard performing the title track); and Paramount's Beach Ball (shown performing "My Buddy Seat"). The band is also credited with performing the title track for Columbia's 1965 film, Winter A-Go-Go.

Albums

 * Go Little Honda (1964) US: No. 119 Mercury Records SR 60940 (Stereo) / MG 20940 (Monaural)
 * The Hondells (1964) US: Mercury Records SR 60982 (Stereo) / MG 209820 (Monaural)
 * Greatest Hits (1996) Curb Records D2-77819

title: The Hondells


text:
AMR 35

The Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance Renault Modèle 35 Type ZT (AMR 35 or Renault ZT) was a French light tank developed during the Interbellum and used in the Second World War. It was not intended to reconnoitre and report as its name suggests but was a light armoured combat vehicle, mostly without a radio and used as a support tank for the mechanised infantry.

The AMR 35 originated from a project in 1933 to improve the earlier AMR 33 by moving the engine from the front to the back. In 1934 a stronger suspension was fitted and the type was chosen to replace the AMR 33 on the production lines that year. Three orders were made by the French Cavalry of in total two hundred vehicles in five versions, including two machine-gun tanks, two tank destroyer types and a command tank. Later ten were ordered of a radio communication variant, the Renault YS, and over forty were built of a tropical version, the ZT 4.

The production would be much delayed by financial and technical problems, deliveries only starting in 1936. The AMR 35 proved to be an unreliable vehicle. It was one of the fastest tanks of its day, but its very speed overstressed its mechanical parts. In 1937 it was decided not to make any further orders but organisational difficulties slowed final deliveries of some versions until well into 1940; even by the time of the Fall of France in June 1940 the ZT 4 order had not yet been finished.

During the Battle of France the AMR 35s were part of armoured and motorised divisions, the vast majority being lost during the first weeks of the fighting. During the remainder of the Second World War Germany made use of some captured vehicles.

Development
With his AMR 33 not yet being delivered to the French army — this would happen in June 1934 — Louis Renault used two of the five AMR 33 prototypes to improve the type. In the middle of February 1934 he sent the first, N° 79759, to the testing commission, after it had been lengthened and refitted with a much more powerful Nerva Stella 28 CV engine in September 1933, which now was placed at the back, instead of the front, of the vehicle. This was to reduce the effect of engine noise as well as to attain a better weight distribution, two problems that had become apparent in 1933 when the prototypes had been used for manoeuvres. The exhaust pipe was placed at the back and the ventilator moved from the right to the left side. Renault was hesitant to introduce such expensive improvements in the production run; but in February 1934 the head of the French Cavalry, General Flavigny, insisted on these changes being made.

During testing the maximum speed was shown to be an impressive 72 km/h. Weight was just 4.68 metric tonnes (to which a 0.25 tonne simulation weight was added), the average road speed 40.5 km/h. However, some cavalry officers pointed out that the Renault Nerva Stella was a sports car and its engine rather delicate and thus unsuited to the rigours of military service. They proposed to use a more robust Renault city bus engine instead. In March the second prototype, N° 79760, was also lengthened twenty centimetres and fitted with a Renault 432 22 CV four-cylinder bus engine. This vehicle, with a weight of 5.03 tonnes and a simulation weight of 0.75 tonnes, was tested between 3 and 11 April at Vincennes and attained a maximum speed of 63.794 km/h and an average speed of 35.35 km/h. A subsequent order of 92 for the second version with its more reliable engine was made on 3 July 1934. This type, replacing the AMR 33 in the production run, was to have the name AMR 35. Of these, twelve were to be of a platoon command type, fitted with the AVIS-1 turret with a 7,5 mm machine gun and equipped with an ER1 radio set. The remaining eighty vehicles were to have a larger AVIS-2 turret with a 13.2 mm machine gun; 31 of the latter were also intended to be equipped with ER1 radio sets, though in 1937 it was decided to abandon this plan. Also eight radio command tanks were to be produced, which eventually would be called AMR 35 ADF 1, bringing the order to a total of hundred vehicles.

At this time however it became clear that the AMR 33 suspension system, that originally had been intended to be used on the AMR 35 also, was very unreliable: the suspension units were simply too weak to withstand the forces caused by driving cross-country. A complete redesign of the suspension was ordered, also to be used for the new Renault R35. Three types were considered and tested on AMR 33 prototype N° 79758; the first had the idler resting on the ground; the second two bogies and five road wheels, like the R 35. This Renault ZB was rejected, but in March 1936 twelve were ordered by China and four a few months later by the Yunnan province administration. The latter were delivered in October 1938, the former only in 1940. The third suspension type had only one bogie per side and was accepted. The Renault factory designation of the vehicle with the relocated engine and new suspension was Renault ZT; it merely indicates the chronological order of Renault's military prototypes and has no further meaning.

The new suspension was first tested on a third prototype, in September 1934 newly built from boiler plate; its idler wheel was still of the AMR 33 suspension type and its turret was that of the second prototype.

Description
The production vehicles would differ slightly from the third prototype: they had more riveted, instead of bolted, plates and used the Renault 447 engine.

The AMR 35 was somewhat larger than the AMR 33, being 3.84 metres long, 1.76 metres wide and 1.88 metres tall. It weighed, fully loaded, 6.5 metric tonnes (six tonnes unloaded). The vertical armour plates had a thickness of thirteen millimetres, the sloped plates being nine millimetres thick and the top and bottom plates six millimetres.

Its general configuration was changed in that the engine was moved to the back. Originally it had been intended to give the driver a more central position to improve his view to the right but eventually he remained at the left side of the hull, the right side being occupied by a large ventilation grill. The turret, where the second crew member, the commander/gunner, was located, was also placed left of centre. Two types of turret were used: the Modèle réglementaire AVIS-1 fitted with the 7,5 mm Modèle 1931 Type C machine-gun and an ammunition stock of 2250 rounds and the AVIS-2 with a 13,2 mm machine-gun. The 7.5 mm version also had a reserve machine-gun that can be placed on a small mount on top of the turret for AA use. If a radio was present it was the ER 29, operated by the commander.

The suspension used four much more robust road wheels. The two in the middle were paired into a central bogie, sprung by a horizontal rubber cylinder block, that again consisted of five smaller rubber cylinders separated by steel discs. These cylinders also served as shock dampers, avoiding the problems caused by the oil dampers used with the AMR 33. The wheels in the front and back were independently sprung, again by a rubber cylinder block, but now consisted of four smaller cylinders. The sprocket was in the front. The track was 22 centimetres wide and was supported by four top rollers. The wading capability was sixty centimetres, the trench crossing-capability 1,7 metres and a vertical obstacle of fifty centimetres or slope of 50% could be climbed.

The Renault 447 22 CV four-cylinder 5881 cc petrol engine rendered, according to the official French Army manual, a maximum speed of 55 km/h, making it the fastest French tank of its day. Renault brochures claimed the higher speed of 60 km/h and many sources mention the latter number. It had a peak output of 82 hp at 2200 r/m. The average road speed was 40 km/h. The brakes were of the single dry plate type and a Cleveland differential was used. There were four forward gears and one in reverse. There was a Zénith carburettor and a Scintilla Vertex magneto, making it possible to start electrically even at temperatures below zero. A fuel tank of 130 litres gave it a range of two hundred kilometres.

Production
The original order envisaged a first delivery of ten vehicles in December 1934 and a completion in March 1935. This last date was soon postponed to August 1935, but that month production had hardly started yet due to great financial problems with Renault. In June 1935 Renault even refused a second order of fifty, fearing the contractual fines the inevitable delays would cause. However, on 20 April 1936 he accepted an additional order for thirty vehicles, to be delivered before 15 December 1936. Of these, fifteen would be of the 7.5 mm machine-gun version, five of the ADF 1 and five each of two tank destroyer types, the ZT 2 and ZT 3. On 9 October 1936 a third and final contract was signed of seventy vehicles: sixty of the 7.5 mm machine-gun version, half of these without a radio set; and five each of the ZT 2 and ZT 3, with a final delivery before 7 August 1937.

The onset of production was also slowed by coordination problems with the subcontractors: Schneider would produce the armour plates and construct empty hulls; Batignolles-Châtillon would make the AVIS-2 turrets. Final assembly was by Renault.

In March 1935 Schneider delivered the first empty hull. On 20 May this hull was finished and sent to Satory for tests. When these had been successfully completed on 24 June, another vehicle, the third of the production series, was sent to the STC (Section Technique de Cavalerie) for further testing. The Satory vehicle was fitted with a turret and again tested between 3 and 7 August without serious problems. On 9 August however, the STC vehicle failed to climb a 50% slope, even though the other vehicle had done so effortlessly. This would be the beginning of a series of severe delays. The Army demanded that the gear ratio be changed and on 2 September refused to accept the first batch of twelve vehicles. On 19 October the first modified vehicle was finished and the first eleven vehicles were only accepted in January 1936 and the first AMR 35 taken into service on 22 April 1936.

Meanwhile, the Citroën factory had tried to take over the order by developing the AMR Citroën P 103 which had a very novel hydraulic suspension, but this project was rejected.

By 22 February 1936 thirty AMR 35s had been produced; twenty more were being worked on. By the end of June 1936 production numbers had reached 76 tanks, 41 of which had been delivered. At that moment however, a very serious reliability problem emerged that was to slow down production considerably. Many mechanical parts proved to be too weak; especially the Cleveland differentials were not capable of taking the stress loads caused by the high speed of the tank. Much of the factory capacity in 1937 was used to rebuild and modify the entire first production batch of 92. On 8 April 1937 Renault was forced to submit two modified vehicles — one of each of the two main versions — for acceptance as "prototypes". This upgrading project did not result in a very reliable vehicle though: in October the Ministry of War was amazed to find out that out of 43 vehicles, of which the differential had already been replaced five times, six were again in need of a new one.

From August 1937 the 75 gun tanks of the second and third series were taken into production. The first five of these were only delivered between 3 and 5 May 1938, the next ten between 2 and 3 June. On 27 July 56 had been produced and 34 delivered. The penultimate delivery was on 21 November, the last vehicles were probably produced just before the end of 1938. The second and third batch incorporated the improvements made in 1937 on the first batch but also featured some unique modifications such as a Synchromesh gear box and reinforced chassis girders in the front of the vehicle to ensure a sufficient frame rigidity: a severe distortion had occurred on the earlier vehicles.

The AMR 35 vehicles remained very unreliable: on 1 January 1939 only 129 chassis of all subtypes were present in the combat units, the others being centrally repaired or having been sent back to the factory. Due to the structural delays and technical problems it had been decided in 1937 to eventually discontinue AMR 35 production and to supplement the existing vehicles by a more reliable and powerfully armed new armoured car, the AMR Gendron-SOMUA.

For Renault, the entire AMR project had been a financial disaster. On 16 November 1938 he begged the government to be exonerated from the contractual fines, pointing out that he had already, on his expense, twice completely replaced the gear wheels on all vehicles and additionally all transmissions and front axles.

Variants and projects
The three orders of 1935 and 1936 called for a production of two hundred vehicles: eighty-seven of the AVIS-1 version, eighty of the AVIS-2 version; thirteen of the ADF 1; ten of the ZT 2 and ten of the ZT 3. However, the total number of vehicles based on the AMR 35 chassis was higher: there would be ten Renault YSs built; the third AMR 35 prototype used the AMR 35 suspension and finally there would be a production of at least forty of the ZT 4, resulting in a grand total of 251 units directly belonging to the larger AMR 35 family. Also two YS prototypes were modified with the AMR 35 suspension and one of these was again rebuilt as the Renault YS 2 prototype, that is generally considered an AMR 35 variant. Apart from these, three AMR 33s were built with the new suspension, two AMR 33 prototypes were rebuilt with it and about half a dozen AMR 33's were likewise modified in 1940. Also the sixteen Renault ZB vehicles could be considered as belonging to an AMR 35 variant.

Heavier armament
As the 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun was only effective against the lightest armour at a very short distance because its AP-bullet could just penetrate eight millimetres of armour at fifty metres, several efforts were made to provide some more serious antitank-capacity to AMR units. The first was to uparm the main production run vehicles with a heavier machine-gun. The second was to fit the vehicles with the 25 mm antitank-gun; to this effect both a tank (the ZT 2) and a self-propelled gun (the ZT 3), were developed. The 25 mm gun vehicles were primarily intended for the reconnaissance units, the Groupes de Reconnaissance de Division d'Infanterie, of the motorised infantry divisions; these were part of the Infantry, but the Cavalry provided the reconnaissance elements. On 22 July 1936 it was decided to assign four of such 25 mm vehicles to each GRDI. The decision to design two types, despite the very small production batches, was motivated by the desire to let them operate in pairs; the low inconspicuous self-propelled gun would directly ambush enemy vehicles and the higher tank, fitted with a radio set, would be more behind in an oversight position, also with its rotatable turret covering the flanks.

However, the Cavalry at first also intended to eventually acquire the ZT 2 for the other AMR units; the general failure of the AMR 35 project ended these plans.

AMR 35 à mitrailleuse 13,2
The heavy machine-gun vehicle featured the Modèle réglementaire AVIS-2 turret fitted with a Hotchkiss 13,2 mm Modèle 1930 mitrailleuse, which could penetrate 20 mm steel at 500 metres. To accommodate the larger machine-gun, the turret was made higher, more so at the left where the commander/gunner was seated and from which side the gun was fed — normally this was done vertically, but to reduce height the gun had been rotated to the left — giving it an asymmetrical and skewed appearance. This heavier type was produced parallel to the 7.5 mm machine-gun vehicles of the first production batch in a quantity of eighty; it was originally seen as the normal combat version, four of which would be present in a platoon of five. Later however, production was discontinued: though in 1934 even many battle tanks had been so lightly armoured as to be vulnerable to 13.2 mm fire, such a weapon had already become obsolete for this role in 1936. The gun had an ammunition stock of 1220 rounds: 740 in 37 magazines of twenty and another 480 in cardboard boxes.

ZT 2
The Renault ZT 2 was a tank with a larger octagonal welded steel Atelier de Construction de Puteaux (APX) 5 turret equipped with a shortened 25 mm SARF gun, which had a penetration of forty millimetres at five hundred metres. Despite the name, which reflects that it had been designed by the Atelier de Puteaux forge, the one-man turret, with a weight of 650 kilogrammes, was fabricated by the Atelier de Rueil (ARL), an APX offshoot based at Rueil. It had also been intended to equip the AM 39 armoured car (the Gendron-SOMUA). and the colonial version of the Panhard 178, but apart from the ten ZT 2 vehicles was only fitted to five Panhards, so the planned production of at least 259 remained limited to fifteen.

The plan to produce a ZT 2 was first conceived in June 1935. On 12 December 1935 Renault had been ordered to produce a ZT 2 prototype, on a chassis to be taken from the first order of a hundred, but this was annulled when the ZT 2 was made part of the second order in a number of five. On 27 October 1937 the Renault factory estimated that all ten ZT 2s could be produced simultaneous to the second order production run and on 14 January 1938 it was thought that ZT 2 production could be ended in June 1938. Perhaps this was indeed accomplished as regards the first series of five, N° 95860 - 95864. The last five, N° M 3031 - M 3035, would only be assembled in December 1938. This just pertained to the hulls: none of these had yet been fitted with a turret. A first wooden mock-up of one, had been delivered on 13 July 1938. Only at the end of 1939 enough funds were made available to produce the turrets and finish the tanks at Rueil, a process that probably extended well into 1940.

The hull of the ZT 2 was largely identical to that of the "ZT 1". Apart from the 25 mm gun, having a stock of fifty rounds, the turret was fitted with a 7.5 mm machine gun, with 2250 rounds. The turret had both a large roof hatch and a smaller hatch in the back right facet. It had been intended to equip at least one ZT 2, in a ZT 2/ZT 3 platoon of four, with a radio set, but it is uncertain whether any was so modified.

ZT 3
The Renault ZT3 was a tank destroyer with the same 25 mm SA35 L/47 gun in a superstructure on the hull. The development of the ZT 3 took place parallel to that of the ZT 2: a first plan in June 1935, followed by a request to Renault to produce a prototype on 12 December 1935. However, given the absence of a turret there was no need to wait for its development: Renault was instructed to quickly construct a first vehicle by adding a boiler plate superstructure to the old third AMR 35 prototype, and then sent it to Rueil where a gun could be built in and a cast commander cupola fitted.

APX indicated on 6 April 1936 — the plan to build just a single prototype already having been discarded when the second order was placed — that it desired to have five vehicles ready for the September manoeuvres of 1936. That was a very optimistic assessment, especially given the fact they themselves had not yet sent the superstructure blueprints to Renault. On 26 October Schneider announced that the five empty hulls could not be delivered before the end of April 1937 — the blueprints had not yet been received. On 27 October 1937 — the hulls at Schneider are nearing completion — APX demanded that between 15 and 20 November a "prototype" (not the original one of 1935) would be provided for acceptance. On 26 April 1938 APX approved the hull but only informed Schneider of this on 5 May.

Meanwhile, between April 1936 and July 1937 Renault and the French government had had a major disagreement over the question which company should be given the order to supply the cast cupola; eventually this would be Batignolles-Châtillon. Only on 13 June 1938 Renault assembled the first vehicle (from the first series N° 95865 - 95869), that then went to Rueil to be fitted with the gun. On 9 December it was finished and Renault could begin the manufacture of the last nine vehicles (including the series M 3036 - M 3040) of the two hundred Renault ZTs: the second hull was delivered by Schneider on 31 October. The deliveries will have extended into 1939; op 2 September 1939 all GRDIs had attained their organic ZT 3 strength.

To create sufficient room with the ZT 3 the hull was raised somewhat; the roof plates on the sides and front sloped towards the apex of the vehicle where a cast rotatable cupola provided the commander some height to observe his surroundings, in what was otherwise a very low and sleek construction. The gun was placed to the right of the driver with a co-axial 7.5 mm machine-gun to its left. There was an ammunition stock of eighty shells and 1200 rounds of 7.5mm ammunition. As the position of the normal air intake was now occupied by the gun, a large roof ventilation grille was present above the third crew member, the gunner/loader. The fighting compartment was very cramped. No radio was present.

Renault ADF 1
While AMR platoon commanders used an AVIS-1 vehicle with an ER29 radio set — in theory 57 were equipped with one, though in practice it was often absent — squadron commanders were in need of a vehicle with two sets: one to communicate with the platoons, the second to contact higher command levels. On 15 June 1934 Renault was asked to design a single prototype, to be delivered before 1 February 1935. On 15 October 1934 a second was demanded and eventually in 1934 eight such vehicles were part of the first order, N° 87438 - 87445. The second order in 1936 included a further five vehicles, N° 95870 - 95874, bringing the total to thirteen.

The type was to resemble the standard gun tank, to avoid making it conspicuous: command vehicles are a standard priority target of enemy fire. For that reason the enlarged radio compartment was in the form of a superstructure that looked like a rotatable turret — having the general form of the AVIS-2 but without the asymmetry — but in reality was fixed to the hull. In the front of the "turret" a small gun mantlet was present, that normally lacked any armament but in an emergency situation could be fitted with the portable FM 24-29 machine-gun that was part of the crew equipment. To make sufficient room for an added third crew member, the radio operator, the gear box was moved to the front of the vehicle.

The project was accordingly originally called the ZT avec boîte à l'avant ("ZT with front gear box") but later received the Renault designation ADF 1, again a meaningless code: Renault had run out of two letter codes. The army, for security reasons, seems not to have used any special name, which led to a later confusion with the Renault YS.

Due to a delay in the formulation of the exact specifications for the radio equipment, construction of the first vehicle only began on 14 June 1938. The first two vehicles were sent to Satory on 1 and 2 August 1938. After delivery the Army built in the radio sets; this process was finished for all ten vehicles in the spring of 1939. The first vehicle used two ER29 sets; the others, conforming to a decision already made in 1936, used a combination of the ER29 and the ER26 ter; in the latter case the effort to remain inconspicuous was rather spoiled by a very prominent large horizontal radio antenna frame fitted on top of the "turret".

Renault YS
The Renault YS was a version with a large superstructure but without turret, serving as a taller command vehicle. The specifications for such a type had been issued on 9 January 1931: it was then named the Type M. Renault had built two prototypes of boiler plate, based on the AMR 33 chassis, in 1933. General Darius Bloch, head of the technical section of the supreme command, had formed a favourable opinion on these in September 1933 and during a session of the Conseil Consultatif de l'Armement in January 1934 had desired that a dozen be acquired. On 10 April 1934 the order was signed for ten voitures de reconnaissance tous terrain blindés, to be delivered before 31 December 1934, the uncommon term "all-terrain armoured reconnaissance vehicles" intending to obscure the fact that they were command vehicles. They had the factory designation Renault YS.

The prototypes had already been rebuilt with the AMR 35 suspension: to avoid a future disappointment Renault explicitly established in the contract that due to the more robust and heavier AMR 35 chassis to be used, the series vehicles would have an inferior performance: the weight would increase from 3.5 to 4.3 tonnes and maximum speed would drop from 60 to 55 km/h; average road speed from 40 to 35 km/h.

The ten vehicles, N° 84252 - 84261, were only delivered between 14 and 16 December 1937, after having been tested between 1 September and 22 November 1937 by the Commission de Vincennes. The delay of three years could not be entirely be blamed to Renault: the different Arms for which the YSs were intended each had special requirements for the combinations of (short and long range) radio sets to be built in. Some of the latter even yet had to be developed — the first specifications were only issued in June 1935 — and afterwards for each subtype a special interference suppression had to be applied and thoroughly tested. For these tests the original two prototypes were used.

Of the ten, the Cavalry received four vehicles (reduced from an original planned allocation of six) using the so-called "Type C" equipment: a combination of the ER (Émitteur-Recepteur)26 ter and the ER29. Two of these were assigned to the 2nd and 3rd GAM (Groupe de Automitrailleuses) each. The Infantry also received four. Two of these had the "Type G" equipment: a combination of the ER51 modèle 1935 and the R15 (the last a receiver set only). These so-called type chars vehicles, intended for tank units, were assigned to the 507e and 510e Régiment de Chars de Combat. The two others used a "Type E" equipment with a combination of the ER 26 ter and the R15; these were assigned to mechanised infantry units, the 5e and 17e BCP (Bataillon de Chasseurs Portés). Two Type E-vehicles were also received by the Artillery Arm and assigned to the 1er and 42e Régiment Artillerie.

The versions differed externally in the type of antennae (frames) used. As a whole the type had a very different configuration from that of the AMR 35: in the raised front and superstructure the engine was placed in the front, the driver was seated to the right with the vehicle commander to his left; and behind was a large compartment for two radio operators with a high double hatch in the back. The Artillery used only a single operator in exchange for more supplies. The unloaded weight was considerably higher than predicted, at 5950 kilogrammes. Fully loaded, including about 0.8 tonnes of radio equipment, weight increased to about 7.5 tonnes, hundred kilogrammes higher than the acceptable suspension maximum indicated by Renault. Despite the fitting of a second fuel tank, the range decreased to 150 kilometres and the reliability of the type was low with much breakage of the road wheel axles.

Renault YS 2
The Renault YS 2 was an artillery observation vehicle with advanced telemetric optics, including a rangefinder turret. On 20 July 1936 it was decided by the Artillery to acquire such a type, called the voiture blindée tous terrains d'observation d'artillerie. On 11 August Renault was contacted to build a full scale wooden mock-up of a vehicle capable of accommodating the ER26 ter and R14 radio set, a large number of telephone cable connections and on top an optical rangefinder turret with a base of 160 centimetres. The Renault tank design bureau estimated that such a mock-up could be created for the negligible sum of just 6500 French franc and thus on 21 September made the counteroffer to rebuild one of the YS prototypes for ₣ 195,000, apart from supplying the mock-up for ₣ 9500. However, the ministry of defence refused this offer, just ordering the mock-up on 12 October.

However, on 5 November Jean Restany, head of the Renault design bureau, decided to rebuild the prototype anyway. On 26 January 1937 the rangefinder was received, but it proved, with a width of 160 centimetres, simply too wide for a chassis that itself was no wider than 170 centimetres, though an attempt was made to place it in a wooden dummy turret. On 2 April a commission of artillery officers visited Renault and these suggested to use the smaller standard rangefinder used by machine-gun units that had a base of 125 centimetres. This was built in a steel cupola, that also featured a central pair of binoculars and binocular diascopes at the sides and back, that could be protected by armoured shutters. On 22 June Renault offered to sell this vehicle for the discount price of ₣ 150,000 (mock-up included). On 31 July the Army agreed; the contract was signed on 7 October 1937.

The vehicle, N° 58993, had already been sent on 8 August and was for field tests assigned to the 309e RATTT (Régiment d'Artillerie de Tracteurs Tous Terrains). Though the Atelier de Rueil in the spring of 1938 began to study the possibility of fitting an improved turret, no further YS 2s were ordered, despite a continued demand for such vehicles: the Renault YS 2 was considered rather mediocre.

ZT 4
On 9 October 1936, 21 Renault ZT4s, a tropical version with improved cooling, were ordered for the colonial troops to replace their obsolete Renault FT 17's, that were not very suited for the rôle of long range surveillance, typical of colonial conditions. As these troops still used the Hotchkiss 8 mm machine gun as their standard weapon, they wanted six ZT4 vehicles with the same to be produced in France; it was decided in the motherland, however, that it would be cheaper to install the old colonial FT machine-gun turrets on new hulls of the AMR 35, so the latter were to be produced only. Likewise twelve 37 mm FT 17 turrets could be placed; only three vehicle would thus have the more expensive AVIS-1 turret and this was only allowed in 1937. As the colonies refused this solution — but gave Renault no indication of an alternative — deliveries were to be strongly delayed. The first order, destined for Indo-China, N° 6693 - 66953, had to be delivered between April and 9 July 1937, but not a single vehicle had been built at that date. The same year a second order was made, again of three AVIS-1 vehicles, bringing the total to 24. In May 1938 Renault tested the fitting of a 37 mm FT 17 turret on an AMR 35 chassis but no series production materialised. However, he went into negotiations with Brazil about a "considerable" export of ZT 4s. In the autumn of 1938, the colonies made a third order of 31 ZT 4s, all with the AVIS-1, bringing the total to 55. Though Renault now had sufficient production capacity, the standard AMR 35 order having been finished, the labour and financial problems with his factory, combined with a lack of funding by the government, prevented any ZT 4 manufacture to start.

Only after the beginning of the Second World War, when more means were made available, slowly production started: three units were made in February 1940, nine in March, fifteen in April and thirteen in May. On the forty hulls produced, not a single turret had been fitted however. After the German invasion an emergency plan was considered to equip them with a 25 mm gun; in the end some were in June sent to the front armed only with a makeshift machine-gun mount and others remained at the factory. A few were sent to combat with their AVIS-1 turret. That month probably about another seven hulls were finished.

The ZT 4s differ from the "ZT 1" in having large ventilation grilles at the sides and by a changed back, without stowage box, with a different rear-light and a shortened exhaust pipe.

Airborne tank
In 1936 the French Army began planning to execute, in case of a war with Germany, offensive airborne operations on the enemy flanks (Netherlands, Switzerland) or hinterland. As no serious artillery support could be given, it entertained the thought of providing fire support to the infantry by airborne tanks, to be landed on captured airfields. A note by the 1er Direction (the Section des Chars de Combat of the Direction de l'Infanterie), dated 18 May 1936, shows that Renault had already begun to study the technical feasibility of such a project. On 26 May 1936 the Renault research bureau offered a possible solution. It proposed to design a light airborne tank, based on the Renault ZT. To save weight several innovative technologies would be applied: the use of light alloys; replacing the original chassis and turret using riveted armour plates with a cast hull and welded dome-shaped turret; the use of sloped armour and finally the use of the turret configuration already in development for the Char G1, featuring a gun mount on the bottom of the tank, obviating the need to install a heavy gun mantlet. By these measures Renault hoped to limit weight to 5040 kilogrammes for a maximum armour of thirteen millimetres or 5400 kilogrammes if the Army desired the higher protection level of twenty millimetres. The height would be 180 centimetres. To make room for a 37 mm gun, the minimal calibre to provide HE fire support, the turret would have a cross-section of 136 centimetres. A hundred shells could be carried and three thousand rounds for the 7.5 mm machine-gun. The crew would be two.

As France at the time had no cargo planes large enough that a tank might drive over a ramp into their cargo rooms, Renault proposed to replace part of the bottom of a Bloch MB.300 bomber with a platform on which the Char Léger transportable par avion could be placed; it would have to be lowered and hoisted by cables. No prototype was ever built

Tactical function
Due to its name, the AMR 35 has typically been described as a reconnaissance or scout tank but this is inaccurate and possibly misleading. Specialised reconnaissance was carried out, not by an AMR but by an AMD (Automitrailleuse de Découverte). The only ZT vehicles that really functioned in the reconnaissance rôle were the ZT 2 and ZT 3 that were part of reconnaissance units, that would distance themselves from the main force in search of the enemy or of routes that were free of enemy presence. The other AMR 35s however, were to the contrary originally intended to be part of the main force and functioned as its, "first contact", direct security screen: this was at the time the meaning of reconnaissance in the French Cavalry doctrine. Even this task however, would later become secondary to what was to be the AMR's main function: to provide direct fire support to dismounted cavalry or mechanised infantry units; the armoured trucks used by the latter had not even a machine-gun armament.

Prewar assignment
When the AMR 35 was first introduced no sharp distinction was made between the AMR 33 and 35, but this was to change in 1937. In 1936 and 1937 two Cavalry armoured divisions were created, the Divisions Légères Mécaniques ("Mechanised Light Divisions", with "light" meaning "mobile"). Initially it was intended that each of these would be equipped with seven AMR squadrons: four of these in their organic armoured brigade, the Brigade de Combat (two in each of two RRCs, Régiments de Reconnaissance et Combat) and three in their mechanised infantry regiment or RDP (Régiment de Dragons Portés). As each squadron had a strength of twenty tanks: four platoons of five each, there was a need for 280 vehicles. There thus seemed a clear prospect of further AMR 35 orders and a necessity for a temporary use of certain number of AMR 33s — indeed some were taken into service by the DLMs. Within the RRCs the AMR 35s would have to form a first shock front ahead of the SOMUA S35s, engaging likely enemy light tanks, such as the Panzerkampfwagen I. The use of so many light tanks in a combat rôle had been forced upon the Cavalry by a shortage of S 35s: the original procurement plans for the medium tank had been cut in half by budget limitations.

However, already in 1936 it was decided to redirect the production of the Hotchkiss H35, an infantry light tank that had been rejected by the Infantry in favour of the Renault R35, towards the Cavalry that decided to use it instead of the AMR 35 in the RRCs, even though the H 35 was not very fast: the AMR 35's poor armour weighed very heavily against it as the French military in this period became increasingly convinced lightly armoured vehicles could not survive on the modern battlefield. The function of the AMR 35 was thus limited to that of direct infantry support; this was reflected by the later procurement of 7.5 mm machine-gun vehicles only.

The total DML requirement was diminished to six squadrons, four of them active, or 120 tanks. Therefore, it was decided to relegate all AMR 33s to the older DCs (Divisions de Cavalerie) and even equip one of these, 1re DC, with two squadrons of the AMR 35, in its 1e GAM (Groupe d'Automitrailleuses). Apart from these however, all AMR 35s should be concentrated into the DLMs. Some had already found their way into other units: during the general revision of 1937 they would be reallocated. This involved twee exemplars taken from 6e GAM, four from 7e Chasseurs, two from 3e GAM, two from 9e Dragons and three from the 1re BLM (Brigade Légère Mécanique). From photographic evidence it is known that earlier other units had made a temporary use of some vehicles.

Reorganisation
Initially it was intended to reform the 1re DC into the 3e DLM; its AMR 35s would then automatically reach their proper destination — within a DLM instead of a DC. However, plans were changed at the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939: at mobilisation the reserve AMR squadron of the 1st DC was equipped with the Hotchkiss H35 and its stocked AMR 35s relegated to the other seven squadrons — two reserve tanks for each — and, in a number of six, to the general matériel reserve. At the end of 1939 1e DC was changed into the 1re Division Légère de Cavalerie.

Battle of France
In the Battle of France 120 AMR 33's and 187 ZT's were available. The AMR 35s were used to equip three squadrons in the 1st and 2nd DLM, 66 tanks in each division; and one squadron of 22 in the 1st Cavalry Light Division, for a total organic strength of 152; each platoon of five typically had two 13.2 mm machine-gun vehicles and three 7.5 mm machine-gun vehicles. The GRDI (Groupes de Reconnaissance de Division d'Infanterie) of the five DIM (Divisions d'Infanterie Motorisée), each had an antitank-platoon with two ZT2's and two ZT3s.

Five AMR 35 were present in the driver school at Saumur; eight were in the general matériel reserve.

Of the ten Renault YSs, four were used by the Cavalry, four by the Infantry and two by the Artillery. The Renault YS 2 prototype, despite not being made of hardened steel, was deployed by the 71e RA, the artillery regiment of 2e DLM.

During the battle the 13.2 mm machine-gun proved to be incapable of defeating even the German armoured cars at normal combat ranges, its bullets being deflected by their sloped armour. However most AMR's were lost due to mechanical trouble. All vehicles assigned on 10 May had been lost by the end of the month.

In June, an ad hoc-unit was created, the 7e DLM and part of this was the 4e RAM (Régiment de Automitrailleuses) that used some AMR 35s taken from the matériel reserve.

German use
The Germans used some AMR 35s as the Panzerspähwagen ZT 702 (f); the Renault YSs were also taken into service. The ZT4s, being brand new, were partly fitted with the 8cm schwerer Granatwerfer 34/1 in an open superstructure to produce a self-propelled 81 mm mortar; some received the AVIS-1 turret.

Most of these vehicles were used by the occupation forces in France. Certain number (circa twelve including at least one mortar-equipped vehicle) were used by Panzerkampfwagen-Kompanie 539 in Prague for occupational duty in protectorate Böhmen und Mähren. In May 1945 three ZT4s had been captured by the Czech resistance and turned against their former owners.

title: AMR 35


text:
User talk:Kirkpatrick

Nothing to say. Please leave message below.

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Closeburn castle.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kirkpatrick


text:
Barney Rubble

Bernard Matthew "Barney" Rubble is a fictional character who appears in the television animated series The Flintstones. He is the diminutive, blond-haired caveman husband of Betty Rubble and adoptive father of Bamm-Bamm Rubble. His best friend is his next door neighbor, Fred.

Barney's personality was based on that of Ed Norton on the 1950s television series The Honeymooners, played by Art Carney. Like Ralph Kramden on The Honeymooners, Fred was constantly on the lookout for get-rich-quick schemes, while Barney, like Norton, found life satisfactory as it was, but participated in said schemes because Fred was his friend. Usually, after Fred had hatched one of his plans, Barney showed his agreement by laughing and saying, "Uh hee hee hee... OK, Fred!" or "Hee hee hee... whatever you say, Fred!"

In the early episodes, Barney had a New Jersey accent. It was soon changed to a deeper, more chuckle-like American voice. In "On the Rocks" and the late 2000s, his New Jersey accent returns.

Barney's interests included bowling, playing pool, poker, tinkering around in Fred's garage, and playing golf (though in some episodes, Barney did not know how to play golf). He, like Fred, was also a member of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes lodge and its predecessor in earlier episodes, the Loyal Order of Dinosaurs. He is also a talented pianist and drummer. In the first episode of the original series, he was an inventor of a human-powered helicopter. Another time Barney actually built an advanced sports car racer; which almost but did not win a $50,000 race because the car's stone wheels crumbled at the last minute. Although clearly depicted as being in better shape than Fred, he is not shown to be quite as enthusiastic a sportsman as Fred is. This distinction can be attributed to Fred's fondness for food, though Barney is shown to be almost as capable of excessive appetite on a number of occasions.

Biography
Barney grew up at 142 Boulder Avenue in Granitetown (north of Bedrock). He was acknowledged to be the maternal nephew of Fred Flintstone's boss, Mr. George Slate. As young adults, Barney and Fred worked as bellhops at a resort, where they first met Wilma and Betty, who were working as cigarette girls. Eventually, Barney married Betty (as Fred did Wilma).

Several episodes and spinoffs suggest that Barney, along with Fred, spent some time in the army early in their marriages, though said references may be to Barney and Fred's military service in the first-season episode "The Astr'nuts."

An early episode of the original series does have a brief scene of Barney working at the Granite Building for a Mr. H. Granite. He was fired from his job during the first season episode "No Help Wanted" (due to Fred's misguided attempt to negotiate a raise for Barney) and takes a new job as a repo man. His employment is never addressed over the remainder of the series. The majority of subsequent spinoffs suggest at some point after the original series, Barney went to work at the Slate Rock and Gravel Company quarry alongside Fred as a fellow dino-crane operator. When speaking to an upper-crust snob in another episode, Betty declares Barney is in "top-secret" work, but that might have been a cover for a low-level job or unemployment, or perhaps an in-joke meaning that Barney's job was unknown even to the show's writers. It could also be possible that both Fred and Barney work at the quarry, but may work in different sections of it, under different bosses. In one episode, Barney's boss tells him to "put down his broom", which implies some sort of janitorial work is involved. Nevertheless, since Barney's occupation was never made explicitly clear, inebriated fans of the show would call Hanna-Barbera Studios afterhours to ask about Barney's occupation. In later series like The New Fred and Barney Show, the franchise has Barney working as a co-worker in the same quarry as Fred.

While the voices of the other characters were based on their The Honeymooners counterparts, Mel Blanc was asked to model Barney's voice after the voice of Ed Norton, but he reportedly refused, thinking that it was stealing a voice from another actor, and, for the first 15 episodes of season 1, gave Barney a much higher-pitched New Jersey accent to the point of portraying him as a smart-aleck, though towards the later part of the season he eventually relented and Barney's smart-alecky personality was slowly toned down. At the end of season 1, Blanc was involved in a near-fatal car crash, which sent him into a 2-week long coma. Daws Butler briefly assumed the role for the first, second, 5th, 6th and the 9th episodes of season 2 while Blanc recovered from the accident, continuing to deliver a Norton-inspired performance. Incidentally, Butler was also the original voice of Yogi Bear, who was also inspired by the character of Ed Norton. When Blanc woke from his coma, he was able to return to the show much sooner than expected, by virtue of a temporary recording studio for the entire cast set up at Blanc's bedside. Blanc's voice for Barney had changed considerably after the accident, going from the American smart-aleck voice to a deeper, more chuckle-like voice, quite similar to that of Hugo the Abominable Snowman from Looney Tunes, and he was shown as somewhat dopier than before.

During the fourth season of the original series, Betty and Barney found an abandoned infant on their doorstep, by the name of "Bamm-Bamm". A court battle ensued between the couple and a wealthy man who also had wanted to adopt Bamm-Bamm. Barney and Betty were successful in their efforts to adopt Bamm-Bamm because the wealthy man gave up (after winning the case) upon learning his wife became pregnant, after which he became a staple character on the series. For the next nine episodes (though Bamm-Bamm aired on "Kleptomaniac Pebbles" in the opening scene teaser but not in the body of the episode but would return two episodes later) after Bamm-Bamm's debut, no sign of him is seen on the show. This was because, while "Little Bamm-Bamm" was made after these episodes, it aired before. Once more episodes were made Bamm-Bamm aired regularly. In the fifth season, the family buys a pet hopparoo (a combination of a kangaroo and dinosaur) named Hoppy.

When Bamm-Bamm grew into a teenager, Barney joined the Bedrock police force with Fred for a period of time as part-time officers. Both characters were paired with the Shmoo from Li'l Abner. He later became grandfather to Pebbles's and Bamm-Bamm's children, Charleston Frederick "Chip" and Roxeanne Elizabeth "Roxy" Flintstone-Rubble.

Although Fred and Barney are best friends, Barney loses his patience with Fred occasionally. The best example comes in "I Yabba-Dabba Do!": after losing his patience with Fred for ruining Pebbles's and Bamm-Bamm's wedding, Barney decides to leave Bedrock. He changes his mind after Fred apologizes. Fred is often annoyed by Barney's inveterate cheerfulness, but he does truly care for him.

In the series' original episodes until the end of season 5, Barney's eyes are drawn as ovals or (occasionally) dark circular outlines (similar to Little Orphan Annie in her comics). In other episodes, and on all the season 6 ones, they are solid black, similar to Wilma's eyes.

Television shows

 * The Flagstones (1959)
 * The Flintstones (1960–1966)
 * The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show (1971–1972)
 * The Flintstone Comedy Hour (1972–1974)
 * Scooby's All-Star Laff-A-Lympics (1977–1978)
 * Fred Flintstone and Friends (1977–1978)
 * The New Fred and Barney Show (1979)
 * Fred and Barney Meet the Thing (1979)
 * Fred and Barney Meet the Shmoo (1979–1980)
 * The Flintstone Comedy Show (1980–1982)
 * The Flintstone Funnies (1982–1984)
 * The Flintstone Kids (1986–1988)
 * The Rubbles (2002)
 * Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs (2020)
 * Jellystone! (2021)
 * Bedrock (Cancelled)

Films and specials

 * Alice in Wonderland or What's a Nice Kid Like You Doing in a Place Like This? (1966)
 * The Man Called Flintstone (1966)
 * The Flintstones on Ice (1973)
 * A Flintstone Christmas (1977)
 * Hanna-Barbera's All-Star Comedy Ice Revue (1978)
 * The Flintstones: Little Big League (1978)
 * Hanna-Barbera Educational Filmstrips – featuring Bamm-Bamm Tackles a Term Paper, A Weighty Problem, Fire Alarm, Fire Escape and Driving Guide (1978–1980)
 * The Flintstones' New Neighbors (1980)
 * The Flintstones Meet Rockula and Frankenstone (1980)
 * The Flintstones: Fred's Final Fling (1980)
 * The Flintstones: Wind-Up Wilma (1981)
 * The Flintstones: Jogging Fever (1981)
 * Yogi Bear's All Star Comedy Christmas Caper (1982)
 * The Flintstones' 25th Anniversary Celebration (1986)
 * The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones (1987)
 * The Flintstone Kids' "Just Say No" Special (1988)
 * A Yabba Dabba Doo Celebration: 50 Years of Hanna-Barbera (1989)
 * I Yabba-Dabba Do! (1993)
 * Hollyrock-a-Bye Baby (1993)
 * A Flintstone Family Christmas (1993) (voiced by Frank Welker)
 * The Flintstones (1994) (portrayed by Rick Moranis)
 * A Flintstones Christmas Carol (1994) (playing as Bob Cragit)
 * The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas (2000) (portrayed by Stephen Baldwin)
 * The Flintstones: On the Rocks (2001) (voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson)
 * The Flintstones & WWE: Stone Age SmackDown! (2015)
 * Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021)

Portrayal
Mel Blanc was the principal voice of Barney Rubble, although Daws Butler (who previously voiced Ned Morton, a mouse version of Ed Norton — the inspiration for Barney Rubble — in the Looney Tunes short The Honey-Mousers) briefly assumed the role while Blanc recovered from a car wreck. Butler also occasionally voiced Barney on records throughout the 1960s and 1970s. John Stephenson also voiced Barney on two occasions. Since Blanc's death, Frank Welker, Jeff Bergman, Joe Alaskey, Keith Scott, Stephen Stanton, Kevin Michael Richardson, Scott Innes, Dave Coulier, Marc Silk, Brad Abrell, Wally Wingert, and Paul F. Tompkins have all performed the role. Hamilton Camp voiced Barney in The Flintstone Kids. In the scrapped series Bedrock, Barney was going to be voiced by Joe Lo Truglio.

In the 1994 live-action Flintstones movie, Barney was portrayed by Rick Moranis, who also provided his voice for the film's pinball adaptation. In the 2000 prequel, The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, he was portrayed by Stephen Baldwin.

title: Barney Rubble