Talk:W33 (nuclear warhead)

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Idiots editing the page

Who wrote "(U238 or U239 if I recall correctly)" ??? U239 has half-life of 24 minutes, NOTHING EVER can be made of it. 88.100.47.221 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor here. You can check the page history and see who wrote what.

Please remember our policy against personal attacks and our policy on respecting other editors. You are correct on the physics - without even looking at the T2 database or another source, it's obviously evident that U-239 was some sort of mistake or misunderstanding, as anyone who's at least passingly familiar with fissile materials knows. But you can express that without insulting the other editor.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M422A1

so i'm guessing this is what we called an M422A1? Brian in denver (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yah, I remember this was supposed to have been replaced by the electronic version W79 no assembly required. the assembly crew had to assemble the old one on site before firing. firing this round was supposed to have ruined the gun, and we used a 50' lanyard to stand away from it. Brian in denver (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opperation

evedently things were changed from the expemental model, to the production model. or there is diliberate misinformation. M422 was a single "gun tube" type. and it really didnt fire anything, anywhere. a fuse set off a small charge, which created enough pressure to elevate one set of material, up next to the other set of material (as opposed to a direct impact). in the raised position. the first set of material broke open the nutron generators. and caused mushrooms to grow.Brian in denver (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and formatting issues

It looks like Taurus454 added a lot of original research to the article on 26 March 2010 as well as not using the proper form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.112.205 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced content, which appeared to be the bulk of this article. DancingPenguin (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]