User talk:Mandolin - Revision history

I'mallaboutguns.1: /* Gunpowder Milkshake */

2021-09-15T10:28:23Z

Gunpowder Milkshake

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 15 September 2021
Line 222:		Line 222:

	Well I haven't watched the movie, since I don't know the order of the guns appeared in the film, I did it mostly for the fact of my personal pet peeve of messy things out of order and to find things easier that way. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (EDT)		Well I haven't watched the movie, since I don't know the order of the guns appeared in the film, I did it mostly for the fact of my personal pet peeve of messy things out of order and to find things easier that way. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
	:You ~~don't have to~~ revert it back if it's your way of doing it. If you created the page, I don't have a say in it, you can keep the page in your way, let me know in the future if I'm way out of line next time this happens, forgive me in advance if I sound like a complete asshole in text, I hate the way it looks on text most of the time because it looks like I'm rude as hell or boring. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 06:26, 15 September 2021 (EDT)		:You can revert it back if it's your way of doing it. If you created the page, I don't have a say in it, you can keep the page in your way, let me know in the future if I'm way out of line next time this happens, forgive me in advance if I sound like a complete asshole in text, I hate the way it looks on text most of the time because it looks like I'm rude as hell or boring. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 06:26, 15 September 2021 (EDT)

I'mallaboutguns.1: /* Gunpowder Milkshake */

2021-09-15T10:26:54Z

Gunpowder Milkshake

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 15 September 2021
Line 222:		Line 222:

	Well I haven't watched the movie, since I don't know the order of the guns appeared in the film, I did it mostly for the fact of my personal pet peeve of messy things out of order and to find things easier that way. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (EDT)		Well I haven't watched the movie, since I don't know the order of the guns appeared in the film, I did it mostly for the fact of my personal pet peeve of messy things out of order and to find things easier that way. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
			:You don't have to revert it back if it's your way of doing it. If you created the page, I don't have a say in it, you can keep the page in your way, let me know in the future if I'm way out of line next time this happens, forgive me in advance if I sound like a complete asshole in text, I hate the way it looks on text most of the time because it looks like I'm rude as hell or boring. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 06:26, 15 September 2021 (EDT)

I'mallaboutguns.1: /* Gunpowder Milkshake */ new section

2021-09-15T04:06:34Z

Gunpowder Milkshake: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 15 September 2021
Line 218:		Line 218:

	It seems when I change the size from "600px" to "500px", the screenshot displays. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 16:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)		It seems when I change the size from "600px" to "500px", the screenshot displays. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 16:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

			== Gunpowder Milkshake ==

			Well I haven't watched the movie, since I don't know the order of the guns appeared in the film, I did it mostly for the fact of my personal pet peeve of messy things out of order and to find things easier that way. [[User:I'mallaboutguns.1\|I'mallaboutguns.1]] ([[User talk:I'mallaboutguns.1\|talk]]) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (EDT)

Ben41: /* Once Upon */ new section

2019-08-02T20:04:38Z

Once Upon: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 2 August 2019
Line 214:		Line 214:

	Thanks for completing. In the future, please include in your filenames the season number and episode number to make it easier to ID what episode the image is from. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 01:27, 7 July 2019 (EDT)		Thanks for completing. In the future, please include in your filenames the season number and episode number to make it easier to ID what episode the image is from. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 01:27, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

			== Once Upon ==

			It seems when I change the size from "600px" to "500px", the screenshot displays. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 16:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

Ben41: /* Stranger Things Season 3 */ new section

2019-07-07T05:27:10Z

Stranger Things Season 3: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:27, 7 July 2019
Line 210:		Line 210:
	::Sadly unlike TOW nobody wrote an entire book on its development ("History of the TOW Missile System," Army Aviation and Missile Command (Redstone Arsenal, Alabama), Mary T Cagle, 20 October 1977) so it's kind of hard to tell, but it was the first time anyone tried to make an infantry guided ATGM launcher. I can't find anything on why they went with such a weird propulsion system, but I ''imagine'' it's probably that they couldn't give it steering actuators with period servo motor technology while hitting either a cost or weight goal.		::Sadly unlike TOW nobody wrote an entire book on its development ("History of the TOW Missile System," Army Aviation and Missile Command (Redstone Arsenal, Alabama), Mary T Cagle, 20 October 1977) so it's kind of hard to tell, but it was the first time anyone tried to make an infantry guided ATGM launcher. I can't find anything on why they went with such a weird propulsion system, but I ''imagine'' it's probably that they couldn't give it steering actuators with period servo motor technology while hitting either a cost or weight goal.
	::Also, the terrible performance of the first warhead is in line with other weapons of the period: the original TOW only got 430mm (16.9 in) RHA, so Dragon didn't do that badly considering it's a rolling airframe and that's known to screw up hollow charge jet formation (hence tank guns switching to smoothbore). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 March 2019 (EDT)		::Also, the terrible performance of the first warhead is in line with other weapons of the period: the original TOW only got 430mm (16.9 in) RHA, so Dragon didn't do that badly considering it's a rolling airframe and that's known to screw up hollow charge jet formation (hence tank guns switching to smoothbore). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

			== Stranger Things Season 3 ==

			Thanks for completing. In the future, please include in your filenames the season number and episode number to make it easier to ID what episode the image is from. --[[User:Ben41\|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41\|talk]]) 01:27, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Dragon */

2019-03-12T23:26:10Z

Dragon

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 12 March 2019
Line 208:		Line 208:
	Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)		Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
	:I'll have to dig it back up since ATM I'm torturing myself trying to write an article on the 40mm Bofors for the gun wiki. But I think given the "let's put thirty engines on one missile instead of giving it wings" base concept, the designers being massively incompetent is more or less a given. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (EDT)		:I'll have to dig it back up since ATM I'm torturing myself trying to write an article on the 40mm Bofors for the gun wiki. But I think given the "let's put thirty engines on one missile instead of giving it wings" base concept, the designers being massively incompetent is more or less a given. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
			::Sadly unlike TOW nobody wrote an entire book on its development ("History of the TOW Missile System," Army Aviation and Missile Command (Redstone Arsenal, Alabama), Mary T Cagle, 20 October 1977) so it's kind of hard to tell, but it was the first time anyone tried to make an infantry guided ATGM launcher. I can't find anything on why they went with such a weird propulsion system, but I ''imagine'' it's probably that they couldn't give it steering actuators with period servo motor technology while hitting either a cost or weight goal.
			::Also, the terrible performance of the first warhead is in line with other weapons of the period: the original TOW only got 430mm (16.9 in) RHA, so Dragon didn't do that badly considering it's a rolling airframe and that's known to screw up hollow charge jet formation (hence tank guns switching to smoothbore). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Dragon */ "imagining" IR, even better than fire and forget

2019-03-11T09:00:57Z

Dragon: "imagining" IR, even better than fire and forget

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 11 March 2019
Line 204:		Line 204:
	From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons by 1988, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.		From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons by 1988, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.

	Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced, though missiles with the sustainer motor were tested. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic wire guided, ~~imagining~~ IR sighted Dragon derivative that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.		Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced, though missiles with the sustainer motor were tested. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic wire guided, imaging IR sighted Dragon derivative that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.

	Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)		Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
	:I'll have to dig it back up since ATM I'm torturing myself trying to write an article on the 40mm Bofors for the gun wiki. But I think given the "let's put thirty engines on one missile instead of giving it wings" base concept, the designers being massively incompetent is more or less a given. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (EDT)		:I'll have to dig it back up since ATM I'm torturing myself trying to write an article on the 40mm Bofors for the gun wiki. But I think given the "let's put thirty engines on one missile instead of giving it wings" base concept, the designers being massively incompetent is more or less a given. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Dragon */

2019-03-11T08:46:14Z

Dragon

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:46, 11 March 2019
Line 207:		Line 207:

	Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)		Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
			:I'll have to dig it back up since ATM I'm torturing myself trying to write an article on the 40mm Bofors for the gun wiki. But I think given the "let's put thirty engines on one missile instead of giving it wings" base concept, the designers being massively incompetent is more or less a given. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Dragon */

2019-03-10T07:48:06Z

Dragon

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 10 March 2019
Line 204:		Line 204:
	From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons by 1988, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.		From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons by 1988, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.

	Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic guided ~~prototype~~ that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.		Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced, though missiles with the sustainer motor were tested. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic wire guided, imagining IR sighted Dragon derivative that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.

	Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)		Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Dragon */

2019-03-10T07:46:27Z

Dragon

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 10 March 2019
Line 202:		Line 202:
	I'd trust the FM over ''Infantry'', since the latter has published stuff by Mike Sparks before (I known letters and according to legend also articles).		I'd trust the FM over ''Infantry'', since the latter has published stuff by Mike Sparks before (I known letters and according to legend also articles).

	From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.		From what I've found, Dragon II was the first-stage result of what was supposed to be a two-stage USMC PIP (Army didn't participate because they were already working on AAWS-M) that started in 1986. It was essentially just a full-caliber warhead with a standoff probe that was retrofitted to all USMC Dragons by 1988, that's where that "MK 1 Mod 0" missile variant comes from that weighs slightly more.

	Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic guided prototype that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.		Dragon III was the Phase II PIP that was going to have a new sustainer motor and digital sight, but the PIP got canned in 1989 and no Dragon IIIs were ever produced. Apparently it was going to be similar to the fiber-optic guided prototype that McDonnell Douglas threw together for AAWS-M, which lost to Javelin. Range was increased to 1.5 km (some sources say 2), but from what I can tell it was using the same warhead as Dragon II.

	Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)		Dragon II+ and Super Dragon were the same system, a system put together in 1990 by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory based on the PIP spec and offered to export customers. 2,755 missiles of Super Dragon spec were made before production closed down in 1997, but no known buyers. Performance figure I find for that is 2km range and penetration 24.8 in (630mm) RHA, behind a layer of ERA (it was a tandem charge). [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (EDT)