Talk:Flak jacket

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I seriously doubt that flak jackets in world war 2 had any titanium in them. Also, i believe that Fliegerabwehrkanone (literally anti aircraft gun) refers to anti aircaft artillery, rather that to any type shell that they fire. (Puna)

Yeah, they used steel or aluminum. There are more errors in the article, too...Considering its short length and high error content, it should probably be completely rewritten. This link has info on the early development of flak jackets: [1] Ergbert 03:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the ballistic fabrics....kevlar wasn;t developed until after Vietnam, I believe...

Kevlar isn't the same as ballistic nylon, which was in use during WWII, but not on the first flak jackets. Ergbert 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling

I removed the incorrect spelling of flak jacket. From ABC News.com: McCain says "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."[2] A check of the dictionary confirms that Senator Obama and Wikipedia were wrong.[3][4] --JHP 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my unabridged webster dictionary (as well as merriam-webster.com) list "flack" as an alternative to "flak." Looks like Senator Obama was correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.182.128 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 May 2007

Flack is an acceptable alternate spelling. See Merriam-Webster Online for just one example. Rillian 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, but according to the link you provided "flack" may only be an alternative spelling for definition number three, "criticism, opposition". I'm not sure why it says "also flack" for both the main entry and then it says "also flack" specifically for definition number three. However, if I click on "flak jacket", the only alternative provided is "flak vest". --JHP 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another citation where flack and flak are used interchangeably for a variety of meanings including AAA. Rillian 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of FLAK is the only correct spelling when used as an adjective of jacket. Obama was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dononeg (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 May 2007

Please provide a citation for your claim that flak is the only correct spelling. Rillian 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already did here and here. The dictionary may allow alternative spellings for "flak", but not for "flak jacket". Now I ask you to provide a citation to back up the claim that "flack jacket" (not just "flack") is acceptable. Until you do, don't give me any flack! (That's a joke. Please don't get pissed.) --JHP 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive. Citations for "flack jacket" from Media Matters

A photo caption from the Department of Defense's webpage: "The Norwegian Army Telemark Company is hosting the Viking Run, an annual physical fitness test in the Norwegian Army. It consists of running 30 kilometers (18.5 miles) over rough terrain wearing a combat uniform, flack-jacket, long-barrel rifle, 2 full ammunition magazines, and a helmet totaling a minimum of 11 kilograms."
A first person narrative, "The Most Decorated Ammunition Company in Vietnam," by retired Brig. Gen. Richard F. Allen, which appeared in the September-October 2000 edition of Army Logistician: "Laughing, he told me that at 0330 he had been awakened by the club officer, dressed in civilian clothes but wearing a steel helmet and a flack jacket and carrying a double-barreled shotgun. The club officer told him that the VC were attacking all over the place and that an attack on the officers' club could occur at any time."
The official transcript of a September 2001 press conference with then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:

RUMSFELD: What we're seeing here is all of the complicated gradations and dimensions of this problem and our task -- the task of people who value freedom and the ability to get up in the morning as you people did and walk out without having to wear a flack jacket or hide in your cellar or look up and down the street for fear someone's going to shoot you.

A June 16, 2004, Army News Service article: "At about 16 pounds, IBA [Interceptor Body Armor] is lighter than the 25-pound Vietnam-era flack jacket it replaced and it offers better protection, [Brig. Gen. James] Moran said."
An article by Capt. Andra Higgs in the February 2006 issue of Contact, an "authorized publication of the Air Force Reserve's 349th Air Mobility Wing, Travis Air Force Base, California:" "'I was planning to get out of the Air Force as soon as I got back,' said Sargeant (sic) [Wilsondo] Alteus, teary eyed while standing on the dusty base wearing a desert camouflage flack jacket and Kevlar helmet."

Rillian 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised to see Media Matters used as a source? Got any scholarly sources? I also noticed in this article's history that "flak jacket" was the only spelling used for the full year-and-a-half that this article existed, until right after Obama's comment. --JHP 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why your surprise or lack of it is relevant to the discussion. The list on the Media Matter site is simply a collection of pointers to instances where the spelling "flack jacket" is used. Since the question is whether "flack jacket" is an acceptable alternative spelling of "flak jacket", five citations of military sources using that spelling would seem relevant. Rillian 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting like Media Matters is somehow a bad source. Good stuff, lol 24.186.215.182 09:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the only sources for the spelling "flack jacket" are military press releases. Since when did a military press release become the authoritative source for correct spelling? I have checked several respectable dictionaries, and every single one lists it as "flak jacket". Since I trust the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries more than the US military on spelling issues, I am going to remove "flack jacket" unless someone comes up with a RELIABLE source.Tubbyty (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "flack jacket" because the cited reference (Merriam-Webster) defined "flack" as related to criticism, NOT to the jacket. As stated previously, I have found NO dictionary that spells it "flack jacket" and as such have deleted the incorrect citation.Tubbyty (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. "Flack jacket" is used repeatedly on U.S. military websites. See this Google search of the .mil domain. It may not be "officially" correct, but language is what we make of it. Superm401 - Talk 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superm401, that must be one of the most asinine arguments I have heard in some time. Are you saying that any misspelling of a word that turns up in a Google search should become acceptable usage? If that’s the case, then why do we even have a dictionary? I for one would like Wikipedia to be as respectable as possible. And yes, that includes using the “official” spelling of a word whenever it is available.Tubbyty (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1944 Flight photograph showing 'flak suits' here: [5]

'round shot'

" some round shot used in shotguns and land mines,"

The term 'round shot' here is misleading, especially as it links to an article on the munition fired from smoothbore artillery.

I shall replace it with 'pellets' which is appropriate both to shotguns and landmines (I might change that to 'antipersonel-mines').

JF42 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Buff coat"

The factoid in the "See Also" section is unsupported and directly contradicts the article it links to. I also don't think the link is particularly relevant, unless the page is going to link to every example of premodern nonmetallic battlefield clothing. Arvenine (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]