Template talk:Modern US Infantry Weapons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template 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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

FN P90[edit]

Can someone find a more recent source to confirm or deny the use of the FN P90? The only source on the P90's page is from 1999 and I can't verify it anywhere else. And if we're going to keep it add the caliber "5.7x28" to the bottom" Товарищ (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mod 0/1/2[edit]

I have removed the "Mod 0/1/2/3" from the various articles wikilinks, because it not only clutters the the navbox, but it doesn't denote a different weapon, for example a weapon with 3 revisions (Mod 0/1/2) is still the same weapon and the article will discuss the various revisions/variants. All weapons classified with the Mk X Mod Y system also always starts with a Mod 0, the Mod part can be left out. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Grenade launchers[edit]

I have split grenade launchers from machine guns, because they two aren't remotely related and if you have split rifles into assault/carbine/sniper/submachine-gun, then surely we can split machine guns from grenade launchers ;-) Both categories also have quite a few entries. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

EX 16 and EX 17?[edit]

Why is the FN SCAR called the Mk 16 and the Mk 17 in the article? Hayden120 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to just change it to Mk 16 and Mk 17. I also added (FN SCAR) to the link, it is often referred to by this name. Hayden120 01:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet heard of it being standardized, which is why I listed it with its experimental designation. If they were to be standardized then it would be Mk 16 Mod 0 and Mk 17 Mod 0. I could easily be wrong on this as well as I have not been paying close attention to the progress of the SCAR models. -- Thatguy96 03:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Expirimental Weapons be Here[edit]

I mean they wernt adopted, how are they modern weapons of the US army if there not adopted. The only exemption is the FN SCAR ForeverDEAD 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is answering a question with a question and is bad etiquette, but why can't they be on the list? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well for obviouse reasons that the list would be clutterd. I dont feel it helps to show someone a weapon that doesnt have anything to do with the military anymore. Also how is it a infantry weapon if it was never given to them in the first place? Esskater11 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of some other weapons[edit]

Would there be a problem with adding weapons like the (M2)60mm and (M252)82mm Mortar systems, (M47)Dragon and (FGM-148)Javelin missile systems? I have used all of these systems while in the Infantry between 1998 and 2002. Is the template really for direct fire weapons and non anti-armor missiles? Tigey (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all of those that you mentioned are infantry weapons. No reason why it should be limited to direct fire weapons. Generally, the reason is that direct-fire weapons are given much more air time in all respects. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

lol[edit]

accidentely pressed enter before I was done with my edit summary. Somebody should add hand grenades and mines. --Phil1988 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SCAR rifle and Mark 23 pistol[edit]

SCAR should probably be added - it went to Afghanistan with the Rangers this winter.

Is there a reason the Mark 23 pistol was not on the list? Is there a general vs limited issue preference in play here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on SCAR - see it's there in the list. D'oh.
Still curious about Mark 23. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SF[edit]

A lot of these are weapons used by special forces (i.e. NOT standard weapons of the US military). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.159.220 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

M327[edit]

Is a towed artillery piece, not an infantry weapon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.155.134 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruger KP95D?[edit]

Does the Ruger KP95D belong in the template? It appears 5,000 were bought by the US Army. Source [1] --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

AFV guns[edit]

It's not clear why "AFV guns" should be in the "infantry weapons" box. The L7 120mm cannon is hardly manportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.145 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Too much stuff[edit]

Recently someone went through and reorganized the listing, and when they did it they created many links that are not necessary in my view. There were at least 4 links that would connect someone with the M60 machine gun page, with at least a similar number directing people to the MP5 page. Why not just leave it as one link, and in the Users section of the weapon's own page, make a note that such and such group uses both the MP5N and the MP5KN.

While a lot of information is good, getting too specific can have the opposite effect than what was probably intended. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been a few months and no one has any objections to this, I'm going to go ahead and combine the different variants to make the template less complicated. Grimwol (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
So I went and looked up the template before the August 9th changes, as well as some of the other armed forces templates to get some insight. I've removed instances of "Mod 0/1" as well as "A1/A2/A3/etc" to simplify everything so viewers won't be overwhelmed, and to make everything consistent. Variants of weapons have been merged together as well. I wasn't quite sure how to deal with the M11, Mk 25, and P229. It didn't feel right combining them all to "P226", since they're all different variants used by different branches of the military, and given different designations, so I let them be. Also, I removed the LSAT from machine guns since it's currently a prototype and not issued to any forces.
I'm pretty confident in my changes, but if anyone disagrees with what I did, speak your mind. Grimwol (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have done it myself but am not that technologically inclined/adept. P.S., the differences between the M11 and P229 are very minor. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Browning M2[edit]

If the TOW missile gets to be in, then the Browning M2 should be in. It can be carried by soldiers as well, and requires a tripod set up. Similarly, both are typically used mounted on vehicles. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)