| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
User talk:BurtReynoldsMoustache: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
** The US military would beg to differ; they use RPG to describe launchers and projectiles, and really "RPG" is in English a generic term to describe unguided infantry rocket weapons. Seriously, have you never seen Black Hawk Down? Another good one: here's BAE Systems describing their LROD cage armour: "[http://defensetech.org/2007/07/18/the-mrap-cage-fight/ The LROD system provides lightweight, low-cost RPG protection that is easily adapted to virtually any armored vehicle]." So, the defence industry calls them that too. Another: here's one of Wikipedia's sources, the [http://books.google.com/books?id=ygqNt3ra-vYC&pg=PA403&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false Historical Dictionary of the US Army] (granted, that has an error in saying the Panzerfaust was an RPG, they've confused it with the Panzershreck). You're saying BAE systems and the US Army are wrong and you're right? It might be a backronym, but it's been used so extensively as to become a fully correct term in it's own right, and we're not here to try to undo history. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:54, 14 April 2011 (CDT) | ** The US military would beg to differ; they use RPG to describe launchers and projectiles, and really "RPG" is in English a generic term to describe unguided infantry rocket weapons. Seriously, have you never seen Black Hawk Down? Another good one: here's BAE Systems describing their LROD cage armour: "[http://defensetech.org/2007/07/18/the-mrap-cage-fight/ The LROD system provides lightweight, low-cost RPG protection that is easily adapted to virtually any armored vehicle]." So, the defence industry calls them that too. Another: here's one of Wikipedia's sources, the [http://books.google.com/books?id=ygqNt3ra-vYC&pg=PA403&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false Historical Dictionary of the US Army] (granted, that has an error in saying the Panzerfaust was an RPG, they've confused it with the Panzershreck). You're saying BAE systems and the US Army are wrong and you're right? It might be a backronym, but it's been used so extensively as to become a fully correct term in it's own right, and we're not here to try to undo history. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:54, 14 April 2011 (CDT) | ||
***No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it. BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon. This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name. You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 04:46, 14 April 2011 (CDT) | ***No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it. BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon. This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name. You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called. It's a Type 69, class RPG, so it is as correct to call it that as it is to call an M4 an "M4 carbine" in a caption. We're here to use terms correctly, not alter them to how you wish they were used. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 04:46, 14 April 2011 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:49, 14 April 2011
Ok, now that I've fixed all that
You've got it backwards; you shouldn't just call it the Type 69 and should add RPG to the end (also, you shouldn't remove the note that the calibre is 40mm). This is because Norinco have several things called Type 69 that they manufacture, including the Type 69 rocket propelled grenade launcher, the Type 69 Main Battle Tank, and I believe there's also a Type 69 landmine. It's no more wrong to call it a "Type 69 RPG" than it is to use the term "M4 Carbine" to describe the M4; it gives the weapon's type, and distinguishes it from the many other things also called M4 (eg the SITES Spectre M4).
Really, we should call it the "RPG-7 RPG" since in that case the first RPG is actually in Russian and means something slightly different to the usual Western acronym (it's "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher"), but we don't do that because it's rather redundant; people tend to just assume that the first "RPG" stands for "rocket propelled grenade." Certainly, it's correct to use it as the type of weapon and / or the name of the projectiles it fires. Evil Tim 02:25, 13 April 2011 (CDT)
- Not true: RPG is an acronym with two different meanings depending on who's using it. In Russian it stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot, in English it stands for Rocket Propelled Grenade. It only has the Russian meaning when specifically used to reference Russian launchers that use that prefix; otherwise it's assumed to have the English meaning. RPG is a generic term used to describe devices that launch rocket propelled grenades and the projectiles they launch; it's not an incorrect use, just a different one. Evil Tim 22:31, 13 April 2011 (CDT)
- The US military would beg to differ; they use RPG to describe launchers and projectiles, and really "RPG" is in English a generic term to describe unguided infantry rocket weapons. Seriously, have you never seen Black Hawk Down? Another good one: here's BAE Systems describing their LROD cage armour: "The LROD system provides lightweight, low-cost RPG protection that is easily adapted to virtually any armored vehicle." So, the defence industry calls them that too. Another: here's one of Wikipedia's sources, the Historical Dictionary of the US Army (granted, that has an error in saying the Panzerfaust was an RPG, they've confused it with the Panzershreck). You're saying BAE systems and the US Army are wrong and you're right? It might be a backronym, but it's been used so extensively as to become a fully correct term in it's own right, and we're not here to try to undo history. Evil Tim 01:54, 14 April 2011 (CDT)
- No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it. BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon. This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name. You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called. It's a Type 69, class RPG, so it is as correct to call it that as it is to call an M4 an "M4 carbine" in a caption. We're here to use terms correctly, not alter them to how you wish they were used. Evil Tim 04:46, 14 April 2011 (CDT)