| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Luftfaust: Difference between revisions
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) |
Alex T Snow (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Should we put this in Category:MANPADS? I mean, that's technically what it is - a man-portable anti-aircraft rocket launcher - but all of the launchers that we define as being MANPADS are guided, whereas the Fliegerfaust's means of hitting planes is essentially just shotgunning 9 rockets at them and hoping for the best. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (EDT) | Should we put this in Category:MANPADS? I mean, that's technically what it is - a man-portable anti-aircraft rocket launcher - but all of the launchers that we define as being MANPADS are guided, whereas the Fliegerfaust's means of hitting planes is essentially just shotgunning 9 rockets at them and hoping for the best. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (EDT) | ||
: Well, I'll grant it was clearly meant for an anti-air role, but that said I do think lack of any guidance system is what disqualifies it. If you omit that requirement, it opens the door for an argument for most if not practically all other missile launchers to be included because they too can technically be 'shot at aircraft hoping for the best' - I think being discriminating there is a good thing. So nah. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (EDT) | : Well, I'll grant it was clearly meant for an anti-air role, but that said I do think lack of any guidance system is what disqualifies it. If you omit that requirement, it opens the door for an argument for most if not practically all other missile launchers to be included because they too can technically be 'shot at aircraft hoping for the best' - I think being discriminating there is a good thing. So nah. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (EDT) | ||
== Name == | |||
Seeing as this info hasn't made it here yet, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sp87Ki1dig here's a link to a fantastic video on the weapon by Military History Visualized] (a phenomenal channel), with attention to the topic of the confusing naming at 3:21. In short, the nine-barrel version was initially named Luftfaust B, then renamed into Fliegerfaust; both names are well-documented in primary sources (and the video creator is German, which helps with finding said info), while the "Fliegerfaust A/B" names don't appear in any sort of official or reputable sources. Most likely somewhere along the line the names were accidentally swapped, with "Fliegerfaust" being given the letters and being treated as the earlier name, with "Luftfaust" treated as the later name (which is exactly what we see on this site). If this page is intended to specifically cover the nine-barrel model, the page should likely be renamed to "Fliegerfaust", while if it's intended to (potentially) cover all variants of the "family", then the current name is appropriate. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 22:31, 13 June 2022 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:31, 14 June 2022
Weird source
This source says that Fliegerfaust is a completely different 6-barreled launcher used on planes. Did any other sources corroborate this claim?--Wuzh (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
Bad Image
I'm not sure about having this as a ref, it's said to be a real launcher but it's horribly cropped (look at that diagonal slice across the firing lever and shoulder rest) and either whoever cropped it cut out the entire firing mechanism or this is just a dummy launcher that doesn't have one. Evil Tim (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
Source
This out-of-stock book seems to have more detailed photos of an actual Luftfaust. --Wuzh (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2018 (EDT)
Category
Should we put this in Category:MANPADS? I mean, that's technically what it is - a man-portable anti-aircraft rocket launcher - but all of the launchers that we define as being MANPADS are guided, whereas the Fliegerfaust's means of hitting planes is essentially just shotgunning 9 rockets at them and hoping for the best. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (EDT)
- Well, I'll grant it was clearly meant for an anti-air role, but that said I do think lack of any guidance system is what disqualifies it. If you omit that requirement, it opens the door for an argument for most if not practically all other missile launchers to be included because they too can technically be 'shot at aircraft hoping for the best' - I think being discriminating there is a good thing. So nah. StanTheMan (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (EDT)
Name
Seeing as this info hasn't made it here yet, here's a link to a fantastic video on the weapon by Military History Visualized (a phenomenal channel), with attention to the topic of the confusing naming at 3:21. In short, the nine-barrel version was initially named Luftfaust B, then renamed into Fliegerfaust; both names are well-documented in primary sources (and the video creator is German, which helps with finding said info), while the "Fliegerfaust A/B" names don't appear in any sort of official or reputable sources. Most likely somewhere along the line the names were accidentally swapped, with "Fliegerfaust" being given the letters and being treated as the earlier name, with "Luftfaust" treated as the later name (which is exactly what we see on this site). If this page is intended to specifically cover the nine-barrel model, the page should likely be renamed to "Fliegerfaust", while if it's intended to (potentially) cover all variants of the "family", then the current name is appropriate. Alex T Snow (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2022 (EDT)