Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

User talk:Evil Tim: Difference between revisions

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(737 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
And I think we'll start this again with a clean slate.
''Earlier discussions: [[User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 1]], [[User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 2]]''


==Type 69==
== Look I need help in deleting File:Leprechaun rifle 10.jpg. ==
(also, you shouldn't remove the note that the calibre is 40mm).
::I only deleted caliber text where it improperly listed it as 70mm. 70mm is the warhead diameter of the PG-7 antitank grenade round, which is only one of many different sized warheads available. They all have the same cartridge caliber of 40mm, so that is the only proper caliber to list. If I deleted anything that said "40mm" then I did it accidentally.


rocket propelled grenade launcher
I found a better quality picture and edited it in Microsoft paint. I opened many pages and articles on how to delete the old but it was so hard and complicated. I didn't want to talk to you because I feel embarrassed because I don't want someone else to keep doing my work for me, I wanted to learn so I can do it by myself at the next situation
::This phrase is not used on this site. Acceptable terms include "antitank grenade launcher", "antitank rocket launcher", or "antitank weapon". "Rocket propelled grenade" is what is called a backronym; an incorrect interpretation of a pre-existing acronym. RPG is an acronym for the Russian phrase "Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot" which translates into English as "hand-held antitank grenade launcher". It was later incorrectly translated to English as "rocket propelled grenade", a phrase which itself is incorrect even as a descriptor. The RPG-7 fires grenade rounds that are initially propelled by a gunpowder charge, similar to a recoilless rifle. The rocket motor is a secondary propulsion system that engages after the round is already in flight. Additionaly, saying "RPG launcher" is redundant. The G stands for "granatomyot", a single word for "grenade launcher". Saying "RPG launcher" is akin to saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine".


the Type 69 Main Battle Tank, and I believe there's also a Type 69 landmine. It's no more wrong to call it a "Type 69 RPG" than it is to use the term "M4 Carbine" to describe the M4; it gives the weapon's type, and distinguishes it from the many other things also called M4 (eg the SITES Spectre M4).
== How do I delete the image file itself but not in the article? ==
:: Actually it is incorrect because of the Russian language origins of RPG. "Type 69 RPG" would be linguistically similar to "Type 56 AK", "Type 54 TT", and "Type 79 SVD". All of those acronyms mean something specific in Russian and are particular nomenclatures to Russian/Soviet manufactured models. The acronym is meaningless in the Chinese languages and would not be used to name their equipment. RPG is not a general descriptor like "rifle" or "carbine" or "antitank grenade launcher", it's a specific naming scheme used by the Soviet/Russian military. You are correct that just "Type 69", on its own, is incorrect, but only in that it is incomplete and nonspecific. Within the context of this site, it is acceptable because we don't ID tanks and landmines. The distinction is not necessary. "Type 69 RPG" is just plain incorrect.


Really, we should call it the "RPG-7 RPG" since in that case the first RPG is actually in Russian and means something slightly different to the usual Western acronym (it's "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher"), but we don't do that because it's rather redundant; people tend to just assume that the first "RPG" stands for "rocket propelled grenade." Certainly, it's correct to use it as the type of weapon and / or the name of the projectiles it fires.
I tried to find many to ways to delete the picture but I can't and also I need this tip for future references.
::Nothing about this paragraph is correct. I've already explained how RPG is not a generic descriptor. There is no "usual western acronym", it's just an incorrect interpretation of a Russian language acronym. Yes people assume its meaning, no that does not make it correct. Maybe it's acceptable in casual conversation, but it is not preferred, and is certainly not acceptable in a piece of work striving for technical accuracy, such as this site. And it is most certainly not acceptable for the projectiles, which are not even type classified as "RPG". They are classified as "PG", and that's only in Russian. The Chinese have an entirely different naming system.


--[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 20:17, 13 April 2011 (CDT)
== I tried uploading http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.2.jpg, http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.3.jpg and http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.0.jpg in The Devil's Brigade ==


:Hmmm, hold on a second, Burt...while I can agree that calling it the "Type 69 RPG" may be redundant, I am not sure I agree with you that we should disregard the Western meaning of RPG (even if it is an incorrect translation of the Russian acronym). I think Tim has a point on that, and it wasn't clear to me from the forum topic what you were on about. Broadly speaking, "RPG" has become a generic term for rocket-propelled grenade launchers, even though technically, the term "RPG" refers to munitions rather than launchers. You do know that there is a Wikipedia entry for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade rocket-propelled grenade], right, Burt? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 23:10, 13 April 2011 (CDT)
But it won't work. Please fix it, don't delete it
::: The wikipedia article is basically a rewrite of this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_missile_weapon They are basically the same article and should be merged. There's no reason for there to be two separate articles or for the RPG article to take precedence over the SLMW article. --[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 01:39, 14 April 2011 (CDT)


It only has the Russian meaning when specifically used to reference Russian launchers that use that prefix; otherwise it's assumed to have the English meaning. RPG is a generic term used to describe devices that launch rocket propelled grenades and the projectiles they launch; it's not an incorrect use, just a different one.
== Re: If you're wondering why Greg-Z undid your edits to those pages  ==
::This is not true at all. "RPG" is only ever used to describe RPG-7 variants. I've never heard anyone use "RPG" in reference to a LAW or AT4 or Carl Gustaf launcher or Bazooka. It just doesn't happen. It is not a generic term for antitank weapons. Additionaly, from a technical perspective, the phrase "rocket propelled grenade launcher" would be better applied to all antitank weapons EXCEPT RPG type weapons (and Carl Gustaf launchers). RPG type weapons function more like smoothbore recoilless rifles. Though most rounds for the RPG-7 are rocket assisted once in flight, there are antipersonnel rounds that are in no way rocket assisted. Plain and simple the RPG-7 is technically not even a rocket launcher. --[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 01:39, 14 April 2011 (CDT)


:::The US military would beg to differ; they use RPG to describe launchers and projectiles, and really "RPG" is in English a generic term to describe unguided infantry rocket weapons. Seriously, have you never seen Black Hawk Down? Another good one: here's BAE Systems describing their LROD cage armour: "The LROD system provides lightweight, low-cost RPG protection that is easily adapted to virtually any armored vehicle." So, the defence industry calls them that too. Another: here's one of Wikipedia's sources, the Historical Dictionary of the US Army (granted, that has an error in saying the Panzerfaust was an RPG, they've confused it with the Panzershreck). You're saying BAE systems and the US Army are wrong and you're right? It might be a backronym, but it's been used so extensively as to become a fully correct term in it's own right, and we're not here to try to undo history.
Sorry, mate. When I find something like that, an urge to correct an article happens. -_-'' [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
:::: Yes I'm saying they're wrong. They are technically incorrect. Yes it has fallen into the common vernacular, but this site exists to be technically correct. Furthermore, we're not even talking about generic usage, here. We're talking about the specific nomenclature of the Type 69. Regardless of the common usage of the phrase "RPG" as a generic descriptor, it's still not correct to label the Type 69 as the "Type 69 RPG". --[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 03:17, 14 April 2011 (CDT)
:::::No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it.
::::::Yes it is. You're using two different definitions of technical/technically here. You can have technically incorrect information in a technical description. An example would be using "blue" to describe something that is indigo; it's technically incorrect, but because of the way the word is used in the common vernacular it still gets the point across.
:::::BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon.
::::::They're using it in marketing literature. Using common vernacular in marketing literature is acceptable. Even though they are wrong, it still gets the point across and people know what they are talking about.
:::::This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name.
::::::Just because something is widely used does not mean it becomes correct. You are arguing from the position that it's ok to be wrong as if everyone is wrong. And no it's not a proper name. You're not even arguing for it to be used as a proper name, you're arguing for it to be used as a generic descriptor. We're talking about the Type 69, and it's proper name is not "Type 69 RPG".
:::::You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called.
::::::I am in a position to overrule them here on this site. They can call things whatever they want in their promotional literature and technical manuals, it's their prerogative. If they care enough about it to argue, they're free to come here and air any complaints they may have.
:::::It's a Type 69, class RPG
::::::Now you're just making this up. Nobody in the history of anything has referred to any antitank weapon as Type 69 Class RPG or M72 LAW Class RPG.
:::::so it is as correct to call it that as it is to call an M4 an "M4 carbine" in a caption.
::::::No it's not. Carbine has always been a generic descriptor. RPG is a generic descriptor because of a mistake. Also, we shouldn't use "M4 carbine" to label M4's on this site anyway. "Colt M4" or "Colt M4A1" are sufficient enough. Tacking on "carbine" afterwards is superfluous and unnecessary. Not as egregious as "Type 69 RPG", just not needed.
:::::We're here to use terms correctly, not alter them to how you wish they were used.
::::::Yes we are here to use terms correctly. What you are not understanding is the difference between acceptable usage and preferred usage. In casual conversation it's acceptable to refer to rocket launchers as RPG's, it's technically wrong, but it gets the point across so people know what you're talking about. IMFDB, however, is not casual conversation. Also none of this really matters because what we're talking about is the official technical name of the Type 69. Regardless of how one uses the phrase "RPG", the official name for the Norinco Type 69 is not "Type 69 RPG". Tacking on "RPG" as a generic descriptor is redundant and superfluous. It's incorrect, it's unnecessary, there is no reason to do it. --[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 14:19, 14 April 2011 (CDT)
:::::::Let me reiterate: defence industry contractors use the term in official press releases. English-speaking armies use the term. This can be sourced, your opinion on the subject cannot be sourced as coming from anyone but you. We are here to use the correct terms, not tell everyone terms used by authorities on the subject are wrong because we wish they weren't right.
::::::::I know this already, I don't even concede this point because I never argued against it. What you are not understanding is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCEPTABLE AND PREFERRED USAGE. What I'm saying is not an opinion, technically incorrect is technically incorrect, regardless of how it is used in common speech. Even the wikipedia article says that "rocket propelled grenade" is a backronym, the wikipedia article says that "RPG" has fallen into common usage, which is not something I have argued against. The only point I've tried to make is that RPG as a generic descriptor is technically incorrect. I never argued against it being used in normal conversation is unacceptable. I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't be used as a generic descriptor '''because it already is not used as a generic descriptor for all antitank weapons on this site'''. The only point I'm trying to make here is that the Type 69 is not officially type classified by Norinco or the PRC as "Norinco Type 69 RPG". That is the heart of my argument. Whatever phrase is used to describe antitank weapons in general is irrelevant to my argument. The Type 69 is not known as the Type 69 RPG in any official documentation from its manufacturers or users.


::::::::And you are wrong. It might once have been correct to argue as you're arguing, but it is now technically correct. It can be sourced to official literature as a correct term rather than just being confined to general use. It is used in technical literature to describe this class of weapons and their warheads. It doesn't matter where the term came from, what matters is how it is used now, and now it is a fully correct term. As I've said, it's as correct to label it Type 69 RPG as it is to call an M4 an M4 carbine or an M16 an M16 assault rifle, and nobody would remove the latter for being wrong.
:::::::::You are completely ignoring everything I say. '''Just because something is acceptable does not mean it is technically correct. Just because it is present in technical manuals about other products does not make it technically correct. Find me something officially published by Norinco or the PRC or the PLA that says "Type 69 RPG"''' and you will be correct, but until then you have nothing to stand on. Without official recognition from a Chinese source, your argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "technically correct." '''Being used in the common vernacular does not make something technically correct.''' M16 assault rifle is acceptable, but it is not technically correct. M4 carbine is acceptable, but it is not technically correct.  Both of those examples are more acceptable than "Type 69 RPG" because neither of them come from incorrect translations from a foreign language. One of your arguments is that we need to distinguish between the Type 69 antitank weapon, the Type 69 tank, and the Type 69 landmine, but that's already been refuted by both me and MT2008. So why are you arguing this? What are you hoping to accomplish here? What is your end goal and why do you care? --[[User:BurtReynoldsMoustache|BurtReynoldsMoustache]] 19:29, 14 April 2011 (CDT)


== Type 69 response ==
==More on the M6A3==
Been doing a little more digging (went to the National Archives) on whether or not the M6A3 used steel or copper as the liner.
I [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rrO-5a8PxG7rIarUp9qwOeNL_5513fXk scanned] (its on my google drive) an original copy of OP 1720 to figure out what was going on with the M6A5. M6A5 has a copper liner and penetrates 4.5-5 inches at 30 degrees. Paper estimates 5.25-5.75 inches (call in 5.5 inches or 140mm) if vertical. Also, the [http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP%201720,%20Shape%20Charge%20Ammunition.pdf same paper] notes that the Cavity Charge Container Mk. 1 (page 12), uses the steel liner of the "2.36 inch HE, AT rocket". Also found [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a003689.pdf this paper] that explicitly list the bazooka as using a steel liner.


I've asked BRM to refrain from making any more changes until this is decided upon.   --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 17:05, 14 April 2011 (CDT)
So still nothing 100% on the M6A3's liner, but pretty decent circumstantial evidence. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, the M6A4 is the A3 with a boresafe fuze that isn't quite so alarmingly sensitive
 
Not really trying to one-up you in a nerdfight, but this has been bugging me for a year and I finally found the answer.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
 
==Type 94 75 mm mountain gun==
Was my page the Type 94 75 mm mountain gun just not categorized properly? I wonder why it was deleted.
 
== Check my ID of the rifle in the movie ==
 
Hello, '''Evil Tim'''! Excuse me, I have some question: how do you think, is my [[Talk:Tuman buolbut taptal|ID]] of the rifle is correct or not? [[User:Pyramid Silent|Pyramid Silent]] ([[User talk:Pyramid Silent|talk]]) 05:00, 28 June 2018 (EDT)
 
== BG-15 ==
 
Sorry about the BG-15 edits, I was unaware you were editing while I was, didn't mean to undo them on purpose. I found [https://img.valka.cz/attachments/4461/thumbs/BG-15.jpg this image] that might be a better choice, could you please confirm if this image is better for identification for both the 9th Company: Roots of Terror page and the main GP series page?
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 11:30, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== BG-15 Airsoft ==
 
You're certainly right about the [https://www.airsoftgi.com/images/cawaklauncher.jpg CAW airsoft versions] (they don't have wooden grips) but they do have typical airsoft orange markings around the muzzle, which the image I showed you doesn't, so I don't know what to think. I haven't found anything on the wooden grips at all. Researching I came across BG-15 information using the book "US Grenade Launchers: M79, M203, and M320" by Gordon L. Rottman, which I used to update the GP series page. I also found on [http://www.military-today.com/firearms/gp_25.htm Military-Today.com] some information (which I also used to updated the GP series page) aside from images, [http://www.military-today.com/firearms/gp_25_images.htm particularly this one, which is the same image, but listed as a GP-25]. What do you think about all this?
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== Military-Today ==
 
Thanks for the heads-up regarding Military-Today. I crossed referenced with the book I told you just in case, so I hope the updated BG-15 information on the main GP series page is OK.
Is it alright then if I use that image I sent you for identification on the BG-15?
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== The Truth About 9th Company ==
 
Hello Evil Tim, I wanted to let you know that I came across a strange Soviet wooden-gripped underbarrel grenade launcher (like the BG-15 you mentioned) while creating the page for the game [http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=The_Truth_About_9th_Company&oldid=1194383 The Truth About 9th Company]. Said grenade launcher also has a strange trigger guard lifted seemingly off an M203. Could you please verify? Thanks.
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 06:35, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== Making redirects. ==
 
How can I make a page-redirect? Because in the entire site I dont find any info on how make a redirect. Is something only admins can do? --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 06:49, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks for the simple explanation.--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 06:58, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== Far Cry 4 M79 Osa link ==
 
There is no link to the [[M79 Osa]] page in the M79 Osa section on [[Far Cry 4]]. Would you kindly unlock the page so we can add a link in? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
 
== Re: Used file deleted ==
 
Thanks! I really forgot about this feature. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
 
== Hi I need help in deleting the black side bars of http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg ==
 
I tried removing the black side bars in Microsoft paint but it keeps coming back
 
== Reuploaded the new no black side bars version with http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_8.jpg  ==
 
Can you please delete http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg from my account?
 
== Striker-12 ==
 
Are you sure [[:File:Striker12.jpg|this file]] is an original striker? I see the Striker-12's thumb tab on it. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
 
I talked to some of my friends on the Gun wiki. They pointed out [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSxz7SuLwUg this video], which showcases a Striker with the thumb tab, rear lever (kinda hard to see but it's there), semi-auto fire, and automatic ejection. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiMQ981lph0 This] YouTube video showing a Striker (which I liked a lot) also shows what seems to be a Striker-12 with thumb tab, a much more obvious rear lever, semi-auto fire, wind-up key, and automatic ejection, though it is named incorrectly. I personally think that Striker-12s with rear levers did exist. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
 
So... can I redo my undid edits? I'll be sure to mark the new Penn Arms name. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:29, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
 
== Re: SVDK ==
 
I'm not saying is a EXACTLY a .50 caliber but get close to. (Like .308 and 7,62x51mm are not the same thing). I'm continental European so I will tell you honestly than I would like to know how a inch is. (I think is something like 0.254 of difference judging by the fact that the .45 ACP is a 11.45mm) --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 13:23, 10 November 2018 (EST)
 
==Shadow of the Tomb Raider==
Any idea what this thing is supposed to be? It's Lara's standard pistol from the new game, and all I could come up with is some M1911/Hi-Power/S&W semi-auto frankengun.
[[File:STR smith 2.jpg|600px|thumb|none|]]
[[File:STR smith 5.jpg|600px|thumb|none|]]--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (EST)
 
== FG42 ==
 
I meant to ask this earlier, but I didn't because procrastination. Anyway, I've noticed at least a couple of instances where you've claimed that the [[FG42]] would in some way destroy itself if fired in sustained full-auto. I'm curious as to where you got this information, because, no offense, but it sounds like complete BS. The FG42 was meant from the get-go as a hybrid rifle/LMG, so I highly doubt that it would've gone through the German ordnance department's testing if it'd break when you tried to use it the way it was intended; even if this was the case, by the time they got around to the 2nd pattern (with the normal-looking pistol grip), they probably would've ironed that out. I guess it ''could'' be an overheating problem, but even then, exactly how you're going to overheat an open-bolt rifle with a 20-round magazine to the point of it exploding before either locking it up in a miserable jam, running out of ammunition, or setting the handguard on fire isn't really clear. In fact, there was a Forgotten Weapons video that recently got re-uploaded (because Youtube's rules don't make any sense) showing Ian firing an actual, original FG42 in full-auto, showing neither evidence nor fear of catastrophic failure of a gun that wound up selling for 159 grand. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6LibuC4N0 Here's the video, if you're interested.]) If anything, it sounds like wartime/post-war propaganda more than anything else; i.e. "Oh, that fancy new rifle that the Nazis've got? Nah, don't worry about that! Sure, a hybrid machine gun/rifle ''sounds'' pretty advanced, but we've done some testing, and they don't even work! In fact, if they try to ''use'' one as a machine gun, it'll blow itself to bits! HA! See how much better our engineering is than theirs, men? If this is what they're arming their troops with, then we'll have Berlin by Christmas! (Brought to you by the people who claimed that the [[Sturmgewehr 44]] could be irreparably destroyed by dropping it on the floor.)" Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (EST)
:Ah, okay, I hadn't heard that bit about the actual source of the StG thing, I'd always thought that that was just a rumor. Anyway, I can understand the issue with the FG42, though I still think we ought to include it in the Machine Gun category - after all, if we classified things based on how they ''performed'' instead of their characteristics and design intent, then, for example, the [[L86A2]] would be more at home in [[:Category:Sniper Rifle]] than in [[:Category:Machine Gun]] (being issued and treated like a DMR, despite being meant and designed with features of an LSW), and something like the [[Breda Modello 30]] probably wouldn't even go into [[:Category:Gun]]. So, would adding the category be okay? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (EST)
::True, but it's hardly the only one. I mean, to name a few, we've got the aforementioned L86, things like the [[Galil ARM]] and [[M27 IAR]] that aren't much more than normal assault rifles with a few LMG features, the [[Chauchat]] that'd lock up and refuse to fire if you used too much sustained fire (and often saw use as a sort of battle rifle in practice), and even things like the [[Federov Avtomat]] (which, in spite of intent, had far more in common with an assault/battle rifle than a proper machine gun) and the downright laughable [[M14 rifle|M14E2 SAW]] (which fits this description pretty much perfectly - an implausible design brief that didn't pan out like it was supposed to, and essentially just resulted in a select-fire battle rifle with a bipod and a few other features that'd be more at home on a machine gun). I'll leave the final decision up to you, but were it up to me, I'd at least add the category and make a note on the page of how it was meant as a light machine gun, but turned out to be inadequate in that role, and was mostly just used as a battle rifle instead. Now, if you'd excuse me, I noticed a few other things missing from that category page that ought to be added. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: Maybe we should create a Discord. At any rate, it'd make discussions like these a bit easier.
 
== User:Wuzh ==
This guy's been taking a lot of liberties on the site lately, including so far as to more-or-less on his own decide to at some point conduct a massive site-wide addition of a template of every page with 'the' at the start and wholesale moving a whole subcategory of firearms on the site. Frankly this is rubbing me the wrong way - not so much doing it but that he's doing these big edits without giving any leave for those of you who run things to even address any of this. Bah, well, there it is, bringing it to your (and a few others) attention. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (EST)
 
Hi, I wish to update on the situation. Me and StanTheMan have directly messaged each other and have settled the conflict. I apologize over my rashness at executing my proposals without proper discussions first and will to change my behavior in the future. The situation should be settled for now. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:59, 12 December 2018 (EST)
 
== Beta C-Mag deletion ==
 
I uploaded and used the image of the Beta C-Mag instead of the greenish image of the G36 in MG36-identical configuration because there is often a fundamental difference between that image and these video games' railed MG36. Practically, the "MG36" in these games is a G36 with a G36C rail and bipod handguard (considering our the current definition of the MG36). By itself, without even taking the C-Mag into consideration, that is a very unusual configuration. I have not been able to find any images of real firing full-length G36s with G36C rails, let alone G36 with G36C rails and the bipod handguard. Thus, the airsoft image serves as the perfect illustrating image for the gun models in these games. This model is fundamentally different from a "MG36-mock-up-model" since it is not a normal G36 trying to look like a MG36. It is a "video game MG36", with G36C rails and bipod handguard and Beta C-Mag.
 
As a result, I find that greenish image of a normal G36 in MG36 configuration ("MG36-mock-up-model") to be unnecessary on those pages since they look nothing like the "video game MG36", and should be removed. As to why I replaced them with the Beta C-Mag, it's because the airsoft "video game MG36" had a normal magazine, so a Beta C-Mag is needed to illustrate the mag. Can you revert the file deletion please? Thanks. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (EST)
 
:OK then. Can I remove the "MG36-mock-up" image from those pages for the reasons I stated above? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 09:13, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 
== Log in issue ==
 
It's a drive space issue, we're running out. I cleaned up some files but will need to perform an upgrade to the main drive. --[[User:Bunni|bunni]] ([[User talk:Bunni|talk]]) 14:20, 26 December 2018 (EST)
 
== M47 Dragon ==
 
I finally found a source for Dragon penetration, [https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm3-06.11%2802%29.pdf FM -06.11], page 308 of the PDF. As for Javelin, [https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B3M4078%20Introduction%20to%20Crew%20Served%20Weapons.pdf?ver=2015-05-07-103621-683 THIS] Marine Corps document says "well" in excess of 30 inches (760mm)
 
Of course there's a dozen different opinions on Dragon, [https://books.google.com/books?id=VHQGvsiDUOsC&pg=RA2-PA52&lpg=RA2-PA52&dq=m47+dragon+penetration&source=bl&ots=oRJ-2rL4KC&sig=fLxhfKsnFoDJgR0EBL6KosuDT0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzrvfrkIPdAhXoYN8KHW6rDNk4FBDoATAAegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=m47%20dragon%20penetration&f=false Infantry Magazine] outright states 20 inches. ''In 1975''--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 21:28, 9 March 2019 (EST)
 
:Interesting. Got any good links on that? Not saying I don't believe you, just that there's fifteen different opinions on the Dragon depending on who you ask. Also base Dragon's pen is so low the designer was massively incompetent.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 05:48, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
 
:: That's fine, no hurry.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 16:04, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
::: Actually found a [https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a082061.pdf live-fire test] of the warhead. How did a missile that bad ever enter service? Just A2 variant M72 LAWs would do better!--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
 
== Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections? ==
 
Hello Evil Tim. I posted a section on the M16 talk page about dissolving the "M16/M4/M4A1 with M203" sections, as I do not think those sections are needed, and they add inconsistency. The talk page section can be read [[Talk:M16_rifle_series#Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections?|here]]. What do you think about the proposal? Is it OK? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
 
== Incomplete Metal Gear Solid 2 article ==
 
Hello Evil Tim, I noticed the MGS2 article has been tagged as incomplete for some time. You seem to have edited it a lot, do you know if there is anything left to do on it, or can it be tagged as complete by now? Same as with the MGS3 article, I just wanted to know what's incomplete about them, as they seem pretty complete by now.--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 05:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 
== The Watermarked Kard Image ==
 
In the [[File talk:KRISS Kard.jpg|file talk]] for the deleted Kard image, a point was brought up that the gun shown in that image shows a specific version of the Kard not shown in any other known photographs, and it is also the version modeled in several games. I would make the argument that the image needs to be brought back to illustrate that specific Kard, regardless of the watermarks. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (EST)
 
== New Dragon research ==
 
I posted a [[Talk:M47_Dragon#Some_actual_sources|bunch of stuff]] on the Dragon missile talk page, I've been doing a lot of research and would like to update it, wanted to run it by you since you've done most of the page.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
 
== Forum account disabled ==
My account on the forum seems to be disabled or something. Can you take a look? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:11, 20 January 2023

Earlier discussions: User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 1, User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 2

Look I need help in deleting File:Leprechaun rifle 10.jpg.

I found a better quality picture and edited it in Microsoft paint. I opened many pages and articles on how to delete the old but it was so hard and complicated. I didn't want to talk to you because I feel embarrassed because I don't want someone else to keep doing my work for me, I wanted to learn so I can do it by myself at the next situation

How do I delete the image file itself but not in the article?

I tried to find many to ways to delete the picture but I can't and also I need this tip for future references.

I tried uploading http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.2.jpg, http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.3.jpg and http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.0.jpg in The Devil's Brigade

But it won't work. Please fix it, don't delete it

Re: If you're wondering why Greg-Z undid your edits to those pages

Sorry, mate. When I find something like that, an urge to correct an article happens. -_- Ominae (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (EDT)


More on the M6A3

Been doing a little more digging (went to the National Archives) on whether or not the M6A3 used steel or copper as the liner. I scanned (its on my google drive) an original copy of OP 1720 to figure out what was going on with the M6A5. M6A5 has a copper liner and penetrates 4.5-5 inches at 30 degrees. Paper estimates 5.25-5.75 inches (call in 5.5 inches or 140mm) if vertical. Also, the same paper notes that the Cavity Charge Container Mk. 1 (page 12), uses the steel liner of the "2.36 inch HE, AT rocket". Also found this paper that explicitly list the bazooka as using a steel liner.

So still nothing 100% on the M6A3's liner, but pretty decent circumstantial evidence. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, the M6A4 is the A3 with a boresafe fuze that isn't quite so alarmingly sensitive

Not really trying to one-up you in a nerdfight, but this has been bugging me for a year and I finally found the answer.--Mandolin (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Type 94 75 mm mountain gun

Was my page the Type 94 75 mm mountain gun just not categorized properly? I wonder why it was deleted.

Check my ID of the rifle in the movie

Hello, Evil Tim! Excuse me, I have some question: how do you think, is my ID of the rifle is correct or not? Pyramid Silent (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

BG-15

Sorry about the BG-15 edits, I was unaware you were editing while I was, didn't mean to undo them on purpose. I found this image that might be a better choice, could you please confirm if this image is better for identification for both the 9th Company: Roots of Terror page and the main GP series page? --Ssantusky (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2018 (EDT)

BG-15 Airsoft

You're certainly right about the CAW airsoft versions (they don't have wooden grips) but they do have typical airsoft orange markings around the muzzle, which the image I showed you doesn't, so I don't know what to think. I haven't found anything on the wooden grips at all. Researching I came across BG-15 information using the book "US Grenade Launchers: M79, M203, and M320" by Gordon L. Rottman, which I used to update the GP series page. I also found on Military-Today.com some information (which I also used to updated the GP series page) aside from images, particularly this one, which is the same image, but listed as a GP-25. What do you think about all this? --Ssantusky (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (EDT)

Military-Today

Thanks for the heads-up regarding Military-Today. I crossed referenced with the book I told you just in case, so I hope the updated BG-15 information on the main GP series page is OK. Is it alright then if I use that image I sent you for identification on the BG-15? --Ssantusky (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (EDT)

The Truth About 9th Company

Hello Evil Tim, I wanted to let you know that I came across a strange Soviet wooden-gripped underbarrel grenade launcher (like the BG-15 you mentioned) while creating the page for the game The Truth About 9th Company. Said grenade launcher also has a strange trigger guard lifted seemingly off an M203. Could you please verify? Thanks. --Ssantusky (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Making redirects.

How can I make a page-redirect? Because in the entire site I dont find any info on how make a redirect. Is something only admins can do? --Dannyguns (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for the simple explanation.--Dannyguns (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Far Cry 4 M79 Osa link

There is no link to the M79 Osa page in the M79 Osa section on Far Cry 4. Would you kindly unlock the page so we can add a link in? --Wuzh (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Re: Used file deleted

Thanks! I really forgot about this feature. Greg-Z (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

Hi I need help in deleting the black side bars of http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg

I tried removing the black side bars in Microsoft paint but it keeps coming back

Reuploaded the new no black side bars version with http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_8.jpg

Can you please delete http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg from my account?

Striker-12

Are you sure this file is an original striker? I see the Striker-12's thumb tab on it. --Wuzh (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

I talked to some of my friends on the Gun wiki. They pointed out this video, which showcases a Striker with the thumb tab, rear lever (kinda hard to see but it's there), semi-auto fire, and automatic ejection. This YouTube video showing a Striker (which I liked a lot) also shows what seems to be a Striker-12 with thumb tab, a much more obvious rear lever, semi-auto fire, wind-up key, and automatic ejection, though it is named incorrectly. I personally think that Striker-12s with rear levers did exist. --Wuzh (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

So... can I redo my undid edits? I'll be sure to mark the new Penn Arms name. --Wuzh (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Re: SVDK

I'm not saying is a EXACTLY a .50 caliber but get close to. (Like .308 and 7,62x51mm are not the same thing). I'm continental European so I will tell you honestly than I would like to know how a inch is. (I think is something like 0.254 of difference judging by the fact that the .45 ACP is a 11.45mm) --Dannyguns (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Any idea what this thing is supposed to be? It's Lara's standard pistol from the new game, and all I could come up with is some M1911/Hi-Power/S&W semi-auto frankengun.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing
Error creating thumbnail: File missing

--Mandolin (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (EST)

FG42

I meant to ask this earlier, but I didn't because procrastination. Anyway, I've noticed at least a couple of instances where you've claimed that the FG42 would in some way destroy itself if fired in sustained full-auto. I'm curious as to where you got this information, because, no offense, but it sounds like complete BS. The FG42 was meant from the get-go as a hybrid rifle/LMG, so I highly doubt that it would've gone through the German ordnance department's testing if it'd break when you tried to use it the way it was intended; even if this was the case, by the time they got around to the 2nd pattern (with the normal-looking pistol grip), they probably would've ironed that out. I guess it could be an overheating problem, but even then, exactly how you're going to overheat an open-bolt rifle with a 20-round magazine to the point of it exploding before either locking it up in a miserable jam, running out of ammunition, or setting the handguard on fire isn't really clear. In fact, there was a Forgotten Weapons video that recently got re-uploaded (because Youtube's rules don't make any sense) showing Ian firing an actual, original FG42 in full-auto, showing neither evidence nor fear of catastrophic failure of a gun that wound up selling for 159 grand. (Here's the video, if you're interested.) If anything, it sounds like wartime/post-war propaganda more than anything else; i.e. "Oh, that fancy new rifle that the Nazis've got? Nah, don't worry about that! Sure, a hybrid machine gun/rifle sounds pretty advanced, but we've done some testing, and they don't even work! In fact, if they try to use one as a machine gun, it'll blow itself to bits! HA! See how much better our engineering is than theirs, men? If this is what they're arming their troops with, then we'll have Berlin by Christmas! (Brought to you by the people who claimed that the Sturmgewehr 44 could be irreparably destroyed by dropping it on the floor.)" Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (EST)

Ah, okay, I hadn't heard that bit about the actual source of the StG thing, I'd always thought that that was just a rumor. Anyway, I can understand the issue with the FG42, though I still think we ought to include it in the Machine Gun category - after all, if we classified things based on how they performed instead of their characteristics and design intent, then, for example, the L86A2 would be more at home in Category:Sniper Rifle than in Category:Machine Gun (being issued and treated like a DMR, despite being meant and designed with features of an LSW), and something like the Breda Modello 30 probably wouldn't even go into Category:Gun. So, would adding the category be okay? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (EST)
True, but it's hardly the only one. I mean, to name a few, we've got the aforementioned L86, things like the Galil ARM and M27 IAR that aren't much more than normal assault rifles with a few LMG features, the Chauchat that'd lock up and refuse to fire if you used too much sustained fire (and often saw use as a sort of battle rifle in practice), and even things like the Federov Avtomat (which, in spite of intent, had far more in common with an assault/battle rifle than a proper machine gun) and the downright laughable M14E2 SAW (which fits this description pretty much perfectly - an implausible design brief that didn't pan out like it was supposed to, and essentially just resulted in a select-fire battle rifle with a bipod and a few other features that'd be more at home on a machine gun). I'll leave the final decision up to you, but were it up to me, I'd at least add the category and make a note on the page of how it was meant as a light machine gun, but turned out to be inadequate in that role, and was mostly just used as a battle rifle instead. Now, if you'd excuse me, I noticed a few other things missing from that category page that ought to be added. Sincerely, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: Maybe we should create a Discord. At any rate, it'd make discussions like these a bit easier.

User:Wuzh

This guy's been taking a lot of liberties on the site lately, including so far as to more-or-less on his own decide to at some point conduct a massive site-wide addition of a template of every page with 'the' at the start and wholesale moving a whole subcategory of firearms on the site. Frankly this is rubbing me the wrong way - not so much doing it but that he's doing these big edits without giving any leave for those of you who run things to even address any of this. Bah, well, there it is, bringing it to your (and a few others) attention. StanTheMan (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (EST)

Hi, I wish to update on the situation. Me and StanTheMan have directly messaged each other and have settled the conflict. I apologize over my rashness at executing my proposals without proper discussions first and will to change my behavior in the future. The situation should be settled for now. --Wuzh (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2018 (EST)

Beta C-Mag deletion

I uploaded and used the image of the Beta C-Mag instead of the greenish image of the G36 in MG36-identical configuration because there is often a fundamental difference between that image and these video games' railed MG36. Practically, the "MG36" in these games is a G36 with a G36C rail and bipod handguard (considering our the current definition of the MG36). By itself, without even taking the C-Mag into consideration, that is a very unusual configuration. I have not been able to find any images of real firing full-length G36s with G36C rails, let alone G36 with G36C rails and the bipod handguard. Thus, the airsoft image serves as the perfect illustrating image for the gun models in these games. This model is fundamentally different from a "MG36-mock-up-model" since it is not a normal G36 trying to look like a MG36. It is a "video game MG36", with G36C rails and bipod handguard and Beta C-Mag.

As a result, I find that greenish image of a normal G36 in MG36 configuration ("MG36-mock-up-model") to be unnecessary on those pages since they look nothing like the "video game MG36", and should be removed. As to why I replaced them with the Beta C-Mag, it's because the airsoft "video game MG36" had a normal magazine, so a Beta C-Mag is needed to illustrate the mag. Can you revert the file deletion please? Thanks. --Wuzh (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (EST)

OK then. Can I remove the "MG36-mock-up" image from those pages for the reasons I stated above? --Wuzh (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2018 (EST)

Log in issue

It's a drive space issue, we're running out. I cleaned up some files but will need to perform an upgrade to the main drive. --bunni (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2018 (EST)

M47 Dragon

I finally found a source for Dragon penetration, FM -06.11, page 308 of the PDF. As for Javelin, THIS Marine Corps document says "well" in excess of 30 inches (760mm)

Of course there's a dozen different opinions on Dragon, Infantry Magazine outright states 20 inches. In 1975--Mandolin (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2019 (EST)

Interesting. Got any good links on that? Not saying I don't believe you, just that there's fifteen different opinions on the Dragon depending on who you ask. Also base Dragon's pen is so low the designer was massively incompetent.--Mandolin (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
That's fine, no hurry.--Mandolin (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
Actually found a live-fire test of the warhead. How did a missile that bad ever enter service? Just A2 variant M72 LAWs would do better!--Mandolin (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections?

Hello Evil Tim. I posted a section on the M16 talk page about dissolving the "M16/M4/M4A1 with M203" sections, as I do not think those sections are needed, and they add inconsistency. The talk page section can be read here. What do you think about the proposal? Is it OK? --Wuzh (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

Incomplete Metal Gear Solid 2 article

Hello Evil Tim, I noticed the MGS2 article has been tagged as incomplete for some time. You seem to have edited it a lot, do you know if there is anything left to do on it, or can it be tagged as complete by now? Same as with the MGS3 article, I just wanted to know what's incomplete about them, as they seem pretty complete by now.--Ssantusky (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

The Watermarked Kard Image

In the file talk for the deleted Kard image, a point was brought up that the gun shown in that image shows a specific version of the Kard not shown in any other known photographs, and it is also the version modeled in several games. I would make the argument that the image needs to be brought back to illustrate that specific Kard, regardless of the watermarks. --Wuzh (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (EST)

New Dragon research

I posted a bunch of stuff on the Dragon missile talk page, I've been doing a lot of research and would like to update it, wanted to run it by you since you've done most of the page.--Mandolin (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

Forum account disabled

My account on the forum seems to be disabled or something. Can you take a look? Spartan198 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.buildlogs.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Evil_Tim&oldid=1548710"