Should Indirect fire weapons be allowed?
 

I mean having their own individual gun pages.

I am tempted to remove all IN direct fire items. They can be on the movie/tv page, but I tend to want to discourage people from adding too many items to the GUN pages.

This includes mortars, artillery, aerial bombs, cruise missiles, air burst munitions, Battle ship main guns, etc.

We do have gun platform sections within existing movie/tv pages. That allows us to list the guns on tanks, helicopters, boats, etc.

Input is welcome. Please note that I have updated the RULES section to reflect this. Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

I can see removing the indirect fire weapons and most crew served weapons. I can think of one possible exception though.

The old cannons (Napoleans, Parrot guns ect.) from the 19th century were frequently used as direct fire weapons and more than once those cannons were operated by one or two individuals during a battle when there was no choice since everyone else was dead or injured. You could make the case that those should be one of the items to recieve an exception.

But I understand that the site is in danger of being overwhelmed with many too many pages so it's time to tighten things up.

By the way I was the person who changed the format on the High-Standard shotgun page. I did that probably seven or eight months ago before it had become an issue. I've gone back and corrected other pages that I did that to recently, but I hand't gotten around to the High-Standard page as of yet. Just thought I would step up. So peace and cease fire. :o

Although we call ourselves Internet Movie Firearms Database, I have generally thought of "firearms" as encompassing small arms.

Mortars are small enough and portable enough that they essentially qualify as small arms. I feel the same way about weapons like recoilless rifles and compact missile systems. Anything bigger, I don't think should have its own page, but I admit it's a gray area. For example, I am fine with the BGM-71 TOW having its own page (which it does), but I wouldn't feel the same way about the AGM-114 Hellfire. I can't really articulate why, since they're both anti-tank missiles. I guess it's because the TOW is primarily a surface-to-surface weapon that is often fitted to Humvees (though it does have air-to-surface variations), while the Hellfire is air-to-surface only and is meant to be fired from gunships.

Maybe I should put it this way: If the weapon is something that is too big or too complex to be carried and operated by platoon-sized units of infantry or cav, it probably doesn't deserve its own page on IMFDB.

So RPGs and other types of rocket and missile launchers do count?

Those would be "direct fire" weapons, so of course they count. MPM is talking about weapons that intended to cause (mostly) indiscriminate damage to large areas.

So are we talking about 60mm and 81mm Mortars? In the military a Small arm in any weapon that is less than 20mm. Do we really have a page issue on this site? How much space are you going to make removing grenades and mortars? Again I am bringing up the fact of games if we are shy of space. After all this in Internet Movie Firearms Data Base we should than limit the site to Live Action Movie and Television.

You get no argument with me about Video Games. LOL. I've been pushing that mantra for years. Its a lost cause. But that is not for just one or two mods to decide. Despite my wishes ... hahaha. I can't impose my will on the rest of the membership since there are obviously a lot of members who like creating Video game pages (despite the fact that so many of the pages are of poor quality).

It's NOT ABOUT SPACE, though. It's about clutter and the user experience. I'm torn on Mortars. Both you and I know that armories have mortars for film, but it still seems to be edging closer and closer to artillery, which I certainly DON'T want to have their own gun pages (note that I do identify artillery pieces on their own movie pages).

But I repeatedly rail about quality, NOT Quantity and yet so many members are obsessed with listing or categorizing every single possible weapon or category or combination or whatever they can think of. I think the term 'Quality not quantity' is lost on many contributors.

I strongly agree, that would completely simplify things for us on the site. It would also cure the website's "too many 10 year olds because they wanna see call of duty page" syndrome. Like I said before, the videogame section draws children and other indesirable folk to IMFDB like flies to a turd.

As for indirect fire weapons I think MT2008's suggestion for determining appropriateness could work. Or that we could decide on a case by case basis until we come up with an appropriate policy.''
I'd suggest if the weapon is primarily meant as a vehicle armament and has no dismounted version at all should be a primary deciding factor. That appears to be the difference between the BGM-71 TOW & the AGM-114 Hellfire.

I believe it should be something considered as games and even anime are at the far edge of the scope. We should lock it down to live action film and television so we can preserve that history.

I am not so sure on how to do this. We have weapon systems like the M-61 Vulcan and the 20mm Oerlikon both of those systems require a motion picture armorer as do some of the rocket systems. I really don't see a ton of these systems being posted as they are not on film. But they are on video games as you can use anything gaming. It goes back to the same issue if indirect weapons are using up space than get rid of the games.

Or it could be we do have anything to do so we start to come up with ways to remove stuff like Indirect Weapons or films with one gun in it.

In spite of the (well known) problems with the kinds of users who tend to create video game pages, I think it's HIGHLY unrealistic to expect that we're going to remove video games from the scope of media on this site. I also think it's unfair to do so. But regardless of how one views them, they're not going anywhere from here.

I think my idea is the closest thing to a workable definition of what sorts of "firearms" should be allowed on this site.

The Anime and Videogame articles takeup ALOT more space then indirect weapons & films with one gun in it.

Make that three. I don't care for them.

I don't care for a lot of video game pages, but I don't agree that they need to be removed in their entirety. It would also be unfair to the people who do make good video game pages.

I'm also surprised to hear this from the armorers. I realize you guys make your living working on movies and TV shows, but Steve, I know you've worked with video game dev teams at least a few times in your career. So I have to ask: Do you want VGs off the site because you don't respect them as art, or simply because many of the IMFDB users who make the pages are incompetent?

Well if we banished them EARLY it would have been easier. Now it's been years and people have put work into all those stupid VG pages :(

I can't speak for Steve, but the guns in any game are an avatar. They're not real. Also so many of them are BS (franken guns, made from lazy artists who morph several weapons together) and yet people spend HOURS trying to stretch the realm of logic and declare them to be ONE real world gun or another ... or worse two people arguing just 'what that blurry rectangle is supposed to be'.

Also there is NO information for posterity here. We're not collecting nor logging Hollywood facts and figures. The fact that SOME artist drew SOME picture of a gun merits a big "So What"? in my mind. If it were REAL (like the first instance of a P226 or the first appearance of an SP1, now that MEANS something).

Also I don't like how Videogame artists depict weapons which NO ONE EVER USED IN THE REAL WORLD, like all those prototype Russian weapons, which no one has and no one uses, but because they appear in a Video game, we have to have a gun page for them here. Tons of those obscure Russian prototype and limited prod run weapons would be GONE and I would be glad. If they appeared in REAL Russian cinema (with good screencaps) I would be glad, but they don't.

Note how there are more Pancor Jackhammers in Video games then there EVER WERE MADE in real life.

Any way, you know the mantra. I like others are also tired of running into a FRESH bunch of ten year olds who make mistakes on pages, created lame or inappropriate pages or argue with us. Sure adults can be poor contributors as well, but the sheer WAVE of kids (and not the smart ones who know about real world guns) that hit with a regular cycle, gets tiresome fast.

I agree with MPM. Damn kids and their poorly made pages....

I think the YOUNGEST imfdb member ever to introduce themselves in the last three years was SEVEN (7), the next youngest was Ten (10). The vast majority of new members are 14-15. You see a trend here? With the exception of a few minors who are experienced with and knowledgeable about firearms (e.g. GM45's father is a gunsmith and GM45 back at age 15 knew MORE about small arms than most adults), the vast majority of the new membership own no firearms, cannot legally purchase firearms on their own and have zero experience with firearms, but yet create pages and edit tons of information on other pages that is wildly inaccurate.

Digression:
Actually as an adult, I'm alittle perturbed that so many kids have access to and regularly view R-rated movies. I knew a 12 year old who had Pulp Fiction memorized and there are some vile scenes in that otherwise excellent film.

Sorry, ANYWAY, back to the original discussion!


What do you guys think about limiting it to any weapon used at the Platoon level?

I hesitate to say brigade level, then you get self propelled guns, howitzers, UAV launched missiles, etc.

If the weapon does not have a dismounted variation and is only a vehicle/aircraft armament it should be disqualified.
This would disqualify All self propelled howitzers, AGM-114 Hellfire, M242 Bushmaster.

It would also disqualify everything from the topic post of this thread:

"aerial bombs, cruise missiles, air burst munitions, Battle ship main guns"



Like you suggested I also think it would be appropriate for Platoon level to be a deciding factor with whatever case by case exceptions that may come up.

I would also like to add that if we are undecisive on deleting videogames that we should at the very least get rid of all the User-made videogame mods. I mean it's stupid, no different than out policy of not allowing films that are not on IMDB and are made by a bunch of kids....which most of the time what user-made videogame mods are.

I don't care one way or another about the MODS, but Bunni originally DID allow Mods for popular and commercially available game titles, so they are allowed. I don't question Imperious Leader. It's his sandbox and I just play in it. :D I will push for enactment of stuff that has not been explicitly addressed, but anything that Bunni has already clearly given the thumbs up or thumbs down, I don't question.

darn, alrighty then.

Which is why we're explicit about the mods must be done by professional or semi-professional groups to warrant inclusion.

Definitely not brigade level. Anything that's too big to be carried on and/or fired from a Humvee (or equivalent vehicle) shouldn't get its own page.

As for the 20mm rotary cannon (such as the M61, which Steve mentioned), I am at least OK with them if you guys have those in the industry and have converted them to blank-fire. What I don't want, however, is for people to include those weapons if they appear on a CGI render of a fighter aircraft that appears in the movie/TV show, and were not physically present on the movie set during filming.

That would cut down on the how many films are listed for sure. The M61's in the armory have been out less than a dozen times. But I believe that some films made overseas (Israel) used a plane at the bore site range for on camera shot of the weapon firing.

There are or was an armory that had blank fire 37mm, 75mm and 105mm howitzers in their inventory and since the breach block was the registered part with ATF, armorers went out on location with those also. I towed a 37mm on a trailer behind my Expedition for a film shoot. The looks I got on the freeway were the funniest thing.

lol, I can imagine.

Thanks for that info. If you want to edit the page down to ONLY movies that you know used the blanked M61s, please do.

That is hilarious. Did you get pulled over?

I had no idea that armories kept working howitzers. I had always been under the impression that those are rented out (de-activated) by military vehicle rental companies only, and that the F/X crew handles the pyrotechnics to make them fire. But I guess not.

That still is the most common occurrence. Or they are borrowed from a Nat Guard unit. Or they were working howitzer that is too much of a hassle to load up with a full blank shell, so again, it's probably cheaper and easier to re-set over and over again with a simple "poof" charge from the Pyrotechnics crew.

FYI: I know military reenactors who have 75mm Pack Howitzers and some German Units who have 88s. If they got them, you KNOW Armories can get them. ;)

I'm basically of the same opinion. I think it's fine to mention the indirect fire weapons on page, and point out interesting trivia about them specifically, but I don't think they warrant their own page - it's not really the purpose of the site, and it opens up an entirely new can of worms.

TOW has a launcher, Hellfire doesn't. If you see a TOW in a film, it may or may not be the real launcher. If you see a Hellfire in a film, it most certainly is not real, it's just the munition.

Good point. Either way, Hellfires don't belong on this site.