Talk:Weapons in the Re-imagined Series/Archive 1

Future of KEW article

With this new page, I wonder what should happen with the KEW article. I copied the "autocannon" section there and also wanted to copy the "point defense" section. But then the article would be useless and could be deleted (KEW could be redirect here).

Or should we only summarize those two sections and include a "See main article link" to there? --Serenity 12:36, 10 January 2007 (CST)

My first reaction is to make KEW redirect here. Is there any information there that isn't shown here or more specific articles? "KEW" is just too broad. --Spencerian 13:00, 10 January 2007 (CST)

As said, if I copy the "point defense" part as well, there is nothing there anymore. It also has a bit about the main guns, but with Battery that's redundant. --Serenity 13:05, 10 January 2007 (CST)

All the more reason to cease KEW. I feel centralization of all ship weapons but sidearms would be preferable. Your call. --Spencerian 13:44, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Alright, I'll do that. What should I do with the talk page? Move it here? I can't use the normal move function since this page already exists, but I could copy-paste it. --Serenity 14:06, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Normally we just let it go in cases like this unless there are very significant discussions that are critical to the article's existence. In this case, a summary that tells the result of the merge and why it occurred (which in turn is a summary of the consensus from the old talk pages) should be fine. No need to horde that stuff. --Spencerian 14:29, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Explosives and rocket launchers

Plastic explosives like G-4 have been used on numerous occassions in different forms, ranging from larger blocks to small chunks used to open doors. And in "Exodus, Part I" we see the Marines taking out Centurions with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade).
Do these fall under "small arms"? According to Wikipedia RPGs can fall under that term, but it doesn't seem like explosives do. Should we stick to that and create a seperate "explosives" section or add it as sub-section of "small arms". The latter is probably better, given the overall structure of the article (and after all they did keep it in the small arms locker).
But the obvious solution would be calling it "Small arms and explosives". Duh :)

I'll wait with adding the normal rifles and pistols here though, until the controvery about the small arms article is solved. Alternatively, if it turns out that a seperate small arms article specifically for an in-universe POV is created, the RPG could be added to that. --Serenity 08:28, 11 January 2007 (CST)

If I remember correctly, it's not an RPG in Exodus, but a light anti-tank missile. I need to get a pic of it before I can be sure though. AT missiles are considered crew-served weapons if they are larger than, say, an M72 LAW. --Talos 10:51, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Maybe it falls more into the larger "shoulder launched weapons"/"anti tank guided missile" category, but RPGs are anti-tank weapons, although they are used against more lightly armored vehicles instead of MBTs these days. Originally the acronym comes from Russian and stands for "handheld anti-tank grenade-launcher". Picture is here btw.

All in all, while it technically probably doesn't belong into "small arms", I guess it's better to stick it there for simpilicity and maybe make a note about that, instead of creating an own header for a weapon that has only been seen once so far. --Serenity 11:04, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Soviet RPGs are an unusual case because they are considered personel weapons in the old Soviet army, soldiers would carry ones as their weapon instead of a rifle. Some western RPGs are crew-served though. Just by memory, the rocket in Exodus looked like a SMAW, but I need a picture to identify it (hint to anyone with it from iTunes). --Talos 11:07, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Maybe a "support weapon" section would work, this could also include any future machine guns and such we see. --Talos 11:08, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Cylon Raider's weapons

I know that everyone seems intent on the theory that the raider has two sets of KEW's of differing caliber but is not possible that one set is just merely a targeting asset, a sensor of some sort? I've never seen the Raider firing anything other than 'slug' rounds and only two lines of them at that. --Imperator 11:40 19 August 2007 GMT

Yeah could be. To be honest that part of the article was copied from some other article that took the speculation just a bit too far. It's more likely that there is simply a mismatch between the ammunition and the Raider model, so that part might be over analyzing things. That the ammo is a mix of explosives, slugs and tracers was confirmed by Bradley Thompson. Size mismatches aside, they could be fired from the same barrel. --Serenity 05:49, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Sidearm caliber

It appears Valerii was not using a standard sidearm. (I specifically avoided naming the victim to prevent incidental/unnecessary spoillage of the S1 cliffhanger.) Here's the gun, the gun firing, and a promo shot (or two) that seem to back that as well. --Steelviper 16:07, 20 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, it seems to be the same gun she tries to commit suicide with. Best thing is if we don't narrow it down specifically, since it's actually two different calibers (at least from a behind the scenes perspective). The Five-seveN obviously uses the 5.7*28mm cartridge (a bit larger than 0.22). I don't know what revolver the first version is made from, but it's probably something like 0.32 or 0.38 --Serenity 16:25, 20 November 2007 (CST)

It could be .357 or .44 Magnum for all we know. And it might not be the same caliber in the show. --Kregano 17:37, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Right on. That's why the article has stayed silent on the matter. We don't really know, and with the switch to the Five-seveN, we're not likely to find out. --Steelviper 18:09, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Whatever the caliber, I think we could say that of the 2 sidearm variants, the early (Miniseries/Season 1) model is a REVOLVER, not a semi-automatic. A couple of reasons for this- 1) The majority of semi-autos have a magazine inserted through the grip (e.g. the Five-seveN) or at least have an easily identifiable place to insert a clip (e.g. the Mauser C-96/ Han Solo model). The early model sidearm doesn't- 2) The prop itself is built on a revolver; Occam says that the in-universe weapon is probably a revolver too. As far as calibers go, the early sidearm is probably a heavier caliber, since revolvers IN GENERAL are able to fire a larger round than semi-autos for the same size handgun, due to the heavier construction of the cylinder- sacrificing ammo capacity for power. This could be how Helo's rounds go straight through a Centurion's head on Caprica, whereas we haven't seen the current FN model sidearms being that effective. (The Fleet was apparently transitioning to a new sidearm type at the time of the series; not unlike the 1980s when the U.S. switched from .45 to 9mm, with some soldiers hanging on to their beloved Colts.) Darthpaul 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Railguns

In this article on the SCI-FI Channel website, it says "the troops and fighter aircraft on the Galactica use slugs of metal propelled by chemical combustion". If true, this puts an end to the railgun speculation. Is this a reliable source?--Isidis 14:55, 3 January 2008 (CST)

Doesn't look like one. The reason I say that is because the article comes off very much like a humor piece and appears to be rife with assumptions, with no real sources to back it up. The only thing going for it is its association with the SFC, but that's it. And even SFC has produced a few turkeys -- such as "Nelena Cain" (back when "Pegasus" first aired), etc. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 15:05, 3 January 2008 (CST)

Note that it mentions the troops and fighter aircraft, but not Galactica herself. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:36, 3 January 2008 (CST)

I doubt the author meant to be that pedantic. :) --Serenity 15:45, 3 January 2008 (CST)

The tracers are specifically mentioned. I don't think the author was talking about Galactica's main batteries. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 16:02, 3 January 2008 (CST)