I might be wrong, but i seem to remember learning that the ShAK-12 was technically considered an "assult smg" when it was designed. Even though its in 12.7
The military may be weird, but it is predictable. I’ve worked on manuals for both military and civilian clients and the civilian side requirements can change suddenly and for no rational reason.
If you put it this way, yes😅 I've heard many INSANE stories from the german Bundeswehr and those guys were just sitting around empty handed, you wouldn't want to imagine them having PTSD and ammo😂
@@Resardiv Apparently some of them did early on at least. Might have changed since, but given that the average grunt doesn't really care about the specifics, the idea it's a rocket launcher is a common error still. And besides, it doesn't really matter much, it's still a launcher that makes a kaboom down range. Or if it malfunctions extremely badly, a kaboom right beside you..
@@Resardiv The manual specifically calls it a ' anti-tank rocket, fin stabilised, launcher'. Pretty much everyone else just calls it some variation of "disposable, shoulder fired, anti-tank(or armor) launcher". In the summary of changes report it, is the armies opinion: To be a recoilless rifle you kind of have to be rifled, which the m136/AT-4 is not. (factually correct) Recoilless gun is an obsolete term that is included under RR, like field gun for small artillery organic to the infantry. (sure?) We just use gun-howitzers or large mortars in their place these days. (true) The tube is called a launcher, therefore its a rocket launcher. (wut?) If RCL Gun is an obsolete term and has become a part of RR than it must be a RR. On the grounds it would have been a RCL Gun and not a rocket launcher because it doesn't fire a rocket. Probably just standard Ordinance semantics and some officer mad he isn't as smart as he thinks he is after he got dunked on for calling it a rocket launcher by some SPC.
Well the Carl Gustav isn't a rocket launcher because it doesn't launch rockets. It fire shells. Down a rifled barrel. Like a gun. But because a normal cannon that big would rip you apart it diverts some of the blast behind you to counter the recoil, which is why it's called a 'recoilless rifle'. The name for that one actually makes 100% perfect sense. ok well you nailed that on the head and exposed me as a fraud that didn't watch and commented out of confused indignation before finishing the video.
@@DavidLLambertmobile Often times soldiers don't know much about the weapon systems they come into contact every day. Like they know how to use it and do what they need to do well but the technical specifications, how it works, and so on is usually missing. I have a family member who was in the navy and he knew a lot about the stuff he worked on or the procedural stuff but basically a laymen on everything else. It's kind of the difference between a professional driver versus the mechanic/technician that does the repair, and then the engineer who designed the car in the first place. The engineer might not even have a driver license, but the driver can't fix let alone design a car even if his life depended on it. I think there's just a weird perception that the public has of soldiers; that they automatically know everything military related.
When I serve the army I was GRG shooter. (Grenade launcher Carl Gustaf 84mm) then it was 14,3 plus grenade 3,5 = 17,8 kg fully loaded. Today less than 7 kg plus cartridge weigh 3,1 to 4 kg so around 10 kg fully loaded. Effective firing range : 150 m to 2100 m using rocket-boosted laser guided ammunition. Very fun to shoot. I had 95% accuracy of all my shoots if I may bragg. Also we use 9mm tracer rounds ammo. But at max 100 m distant in to paper targets. And also 20 mm metal trainings rounds in to paper / metal targets, but at max 350 m distant. SWEDISH Carl Gustav 84mm first fielded 1948 GRG is an abbreviation of Swedish word GRanatGevär (GRenade Rifle). I also used AK4 back then as side arm.
It's largely a matter of perspective. If you're shooting at a machine gun emplacement with an M10 Booker, it's an Infantry Support Vehicle. However, if you're one of the poor sods manning said machine gun emplacement, it's a friggin' tank!
The rifle is not named after the current king Carl Gustaf of Sweden though, that would be too easy. No it is named after Carl X Gustav 1622-1660 . Yes the F is used on the rifle but not on the guy it is named after.... but the kings "v" is prounounced "f". Also the king was not the tenth guy named Carl Gustav, 1-6 were just fantasy inventions made up a few years before his birth , so he was actually number 4....But the first Carl 1130-1167 called himself Carl II and we don't know who was first... Anyway that means the current Carl XVI Gustaf is either Carl X Gustaf or Carl XI Gustaf. But he is not 84mm or rifled :(
@@a.bastianwiik5592Well, I suppose it's OK to have a king that is not the right caliber. I'm not sure though. Sweden has seen better days. He should be ashamed for not measuring up.
@@a.bastianwiik5592 Carl Gustav armory from the city of Carl Gustav made the weapon. Isnt it odd that Americans like to name their rifles Springfeild for some reason? :)
The English term "machine gun" is weird anyway. "Guns" are a type of artillery piece (that are called cannons in most other languages) so logically auto cannons should be called "machine guns", and machine guns should be called "machine rifles". Then there's auto rifles, but those are a specific type of light box fed machine gun.
The IJA also called the Type 92 Jyu-Sokosha an "armored car" even though it was obviously designed like a light tank. The reason: The Jyu-Sokosha was to be used by the cavalry arm, and military politics demanded that "tanks" could only be operated by the infantry.
Once you bring in other languages, you realise how silly it is to die on any of these tuffets, since those languages have completely different illogicalities and inconsistencies. It turns out that not only are all words made up, but so are their definitions.
@@fridrekr7510 These days the difference between an autocannon and a machine gun is that a machine gun fires solid projectiles while an autocannon fires shells which explode.
I would probably call it an IFV, because it lacks the armor to be something like an APC. On the other hand, I would consider the Merkava, PT-76 and AMX-10RC tanks. They all have armor and a big gun. Oh, and by IFV I mean improvised fighting vehicle, not infantry fighting vehicle.
Meanwhile the AT4 is called a rocket launcher because they just copy-pasted a bunch of stuff from the M72 manual. Oh, and the 84mm recoilless rifle has rocket assisted projectiles available so it's a non rocket launcher that can technically launch rockets.
In MG classifications, during WWII the difference between a German light machine gun and a German heavy machine gun was whether you stuck it on a bipod or a tripod. It was otherwise the exact same MG34/42 either way.
@@russr they didn't have to have one. their differentiation was doctrinal, not by caliber. gun is man portable and fired without a tripod/mount = light machine gun. gun is not man portable and fired from a tripod/mount = heavy machine gun. same thing as at 2:26 in the video.
And during WWI, "Heavy Machineguns" were artillery pieces mounted on wheeled carriages (why they are called "guns"); tripods were the hallmark of "medium machineguns." This is the framework that would hold in the US, with the "Heavy" classification expanding to include vehicle mounted and large caliber options. Arguably, the M60 was interchangeably a "Light," "Medium" or "Heavy" Machinegun depending on how it was used, but because they all used the same parts, and because those terms already apply to existing equipment, it was easier on procurement and logistics to call it something new: the "General Purpose Machinegun."
Whenever we would layout the equipment for the fire support team, we had a ton of different sets of equipment that each came with a complete set of cables. All these cables were unique, and as far as I remember, rarely interchangable with any cables for any other task. Problem was, when we looked at our property book, all those cables would be listed was 15 different versions of "Cable, Digital, Special Purpose" or maybe "Special Purpose Cable, Digital". Reference images were either photocopier fried to hell and unusable or just not provided. So you just had to make educated guesses and frankly fudge the numbers a bit to pass layouts. We never lied, we had all the cables we needed, but when the commander would come out and read off our items, it was never very clear exactly what he wanted us to show him, no shot he even knew what he was asking to see. He just wanted to see 12 cables of one shape, 15 cables of another, and so on. I don't think I ever actually counted up all our shit exactly the same way twice. All an exercise in accountability theater right up until we were deploying. Now all of a sudden not even the senior NCOs can agree on which item is which, and we need to account for every ear plug and AA battery we pack onto these cargo containers. Not a fun week.
The photographs of the cables in an FM pissed me off to no end. They would literally just have the exact same picture and nomenclature for ten different cables, even though they were all different. We’d either have to get lucky with googling them or find the one guy who actually knew the differences between them just from the name.
@@Justin_Taylor why didn't you just tag the cables with clour coded labels and then mark the socket it shouuld be slotted into on the devices with the same colour code in tiny dots of enamel paints (if nessesary, using paints that would look distinct from eachother in NVG) That's what I do as a volounteer militia radio specialist. And I don't ask permission, I just inform my squad leader and CO what I've done to improve my field expediency and why.
@@SonsOfLorgar Because we never actually used the cables for anything, we would pull them out for inspection and put them back in storage and we did label them with tags, but then the tags would get ripped off, or labels smudged, or half the time people were stealing our cables, or it would simply get lost. An M2A3 probably has at least 30 different BII cables. Multiply that by four vehicles I was in charge of and it just gets worse.
A tale as old as time ‘This kinda doesn’t look like the picture….’ ‘Well it’s gonna be what’s in the picture today, cause it’s 8 in the evening and I’m not trying to do this again tomorrow’
@@AOIATSGA LMAO this is true even in the civilian world. Trying to do maintenance on the car and the diagram shown on the manual doesn't even match the fuze box on the car. Eventually we managed since the relative position of the fuzes were the same but the box containing it was shaped completely differently. Same make, model, and year too but somehow different.
I would even drop the track requirement. It's useful for some tasks, but nowhere essential. The armor and the big gun, that's where I would but the line.
Ah, the good old airborne tank conundrum! When I was at Bragg in the early 2000s as a 19D cavalry scout in A 1/17th, we were being prepped to receive the XM8 MGS mobile gun system, a "not tank" infantry support vehicle with bolt-on armor packages that could be air-dropped from a C-130 and fixed up on the ground. We got a handful of 19K Armored Crewman tankers, all jump-qualified, to go with it. The idea was to replace the Sheridan. The MGS wasn't a "tank" for a lot of reasons, but among them was it's weight and role of being air-dropped, supporting infantry assaults, and not being designed to go up against other tanks. Congress eventually decided to scrap the acquisition and so our airborne tank platoon never materialized. I think the MGS gun system became a part of the Stryker 105mm system a few years later. When we deployed to OIF a few years later as light infantry/cavalry, we fell onto M2A2 ODS Bradleys in theater, but being light airborne troops we didn't really know how to integrate them into our skillset. We ended up using them more like assault guns or light tanks, supporting infantry advances with heavier firepower, but rarely actually carried troops like an IFV/APC would. We put one per platoon for the additional firepower of the 25mm Bushmaster and would occasionally lead an assault with them for their armor since the other victors were all HMMWVs, but then the Brads would pull off and use their optics and superior range to cover while assault teams finished the close-in movement on foot or in trucks. So,, a lot of the discussion boils down to how it's being used more than anything else, as the video says. That being said, anyone who calls a Brad a tank unironically should be mocked.
I called my gun a "gat" and no one had an issue with it. Moment anyone said "gun" and it was an immediate "we're not on a fucking battleship private!" from everyone lol.
Kind of reminds me of a movie. Tanker pulls up and tells the infantry if we see a tiger we're out of here, we only have 3 inches of armor. Infantry yells back "how thick do you think this shirt is?" It's just perception.
vegetable is a culinary term not a botanical term, lots of things are fruits that don't taste what a culinary fruit should be according to the platonic ideal
No, Peas are not fruits. The pod is technically a "fruit" but peas are seeds and pod producing plants are considered Legumes (Beans, Peas, Lentils) It's almost like saying a mushroom is a fruit / veg.. It's neither. It's not even a plant.
I've heard from other vets that most vets know barely more than fuckall about firearms in general. They just know how to use what they're trained on and are taught which rounds go to which weapon and what types of shells go boom, fizz, zoom, or lamp. Hell, they're not even allowed to tinker with their own weapons for the most part, just keep them clean. That said, when you dig into variants and sub-variants of different weapons, vehicles, and equipment the semantics starts to actually get VERY important because the name will denote the unit's specific capabilities. The F35-A for example does NOT have the ability to take off and land vertically like the F-35-B does An AAV to a normie just looks like another "tank" until they realize that an AAV can swim and a tank can't. Pretty important difference. And we all know that the military is OBSESSED with trying to come up with the one single tank or gun or plane or uniform to end them all and can do literally everything so we don't have to buy and track all these complicated variations but history proves that doesn't work so well and you'll always need specialized equipment for specialized jobs with some flexible capability worked in. Chieftain is right though. As long as the people with the gear know their gear and do their jobs it's not an issue. If their gear is lacking they will inevitably improvise and new weapons and tactics will organically develop (hopefully not so lacking they just get guys killed)
That always just reminds me of the M113. It's whole purpose was to drive up deliver troops and GTFO. But due to the need for some sort of fire support, troops started using their "armored" personnel carrier as fire support platforms resulting in them being proto-IFVs. So they effectively were using a vehicle never designed for a direct fight as if it stand up slugger, the result was a lot of folks died and M113 getting a reputation for being a shitty vehicle. At least a large part of the reputation was it's use outside of it's intended role. So calling the M10 booker a tank might convince some folks it is a tank and result in them using it like a tank when it really shouldn't.
The M10 Booker has a cannon that is mounted on a turret, it has tracks, it BY DEFINITION is a tank, and then on top of that it weighs half as much as other tanks therefore you could call it… light, it’s a tank that is comparatively light, it’s a light tank
More of the usage behind it. It would be closer to an MMG if it was only used by troops on the ground, but the base weapon is used on aircraft, tanks, trucks in dozens of different configurations/mounts etc. It's a GPMG first, an MMG second.
When I serve the army I was GRG shooter. (Grenade launcher Carl Gustaf 84mm) then it was 14,3 plus grenade 3,5 = 17,8 kg fully loaded. Today less than 7 kg plus cartridge weigh 3,1 to 4 kg so around 10 kg fully loaded. Effective firing range : 150 m to 2100 m using rocket-boosted laser guided ammunition. Very fun to shoot. I had 95% accuracy of all my shoots if I may bragg. Also we use 9mm tracer rounds ammo. But at max 100 m distant in to paper targets. And also 20 mm metal trainings rounds in to paper / metal targets, but at max 350 m distant. SWEDISH Carl Gustav 84mm first fielded 1948 GRG is an abbreviation of Swedish word GRanatGevär (GRenade Rifle). I also used AK4 back then as side arm.
I do love the Swedish naming scheme when it comes to equipment. Most of the time it's literally just "Detailed Name" and Number. Our current service rifle is named AK5C: AK just stands for Automat Karbin I.E Automatic Carbine, the 5 just says it's the 5th type of model that was either adopted or used in trials. AK 1 through 3 were only tests. The C means it's the 3rd variant of that model. The number in the name can also just be what year it was adopted. We have no light/heavy machine guns for example, it's all just Machine Gun XX.
@@monkeyfingerslocksport6429 what i know is that carl Gustavs is a recoiless weapon, that may be true but that doesn't make carl gustavs a rocket launcher per say right?
I rode Bradleys back when they were new. The amount of time it took for everyone to come to grips with the fact that it is not a baby tank was hilarious.
The British Army, during WWI (or if you prefer, The Great War) had armoured (using the British spelling) "landships" that they wanted to keep secret so they referred to this vehicle as a water carrier or "tank".
One of the only good things the British English has over my American English. If we did follow the landships naming scheme, what would ya'll call the tank categories? Would we see stuff like HMLS (his/her majesty's landships) Cornwall or USLS Houston (United States landship)
I love Ryan but I don't get annoyed when ordinary people who haven't been in a military or aren't super nerdy about military stuff like me say machine gun when they're looking at an M16 or tank when they're looking at a BMP or a Bradley, they have no real reason to know the correct term and it gets the point across. Completely different when it comes to politicians and policymakers though, they should not waffle about something they don't fully understand
@@ROBERTNABORNEY Oh yeah, if you’re a journalist doing a serious report, same rules apply to you as politicians. If you misreport a story that involves firearms, it could lead to the public believing things about firearms that aren’t true. I’m only saying I don’t get annoyed when someone’s just chatting about it, if they’re in a professional position they should do the research.
Yes, ‘what can we (the Admiralty, their project) call this thing? Land Ships?’ ‘Isn’t it secret? We better give it a cover name, how about a transport under armor for liquids, water or maybe fuel?’
Yea, it's already confusing and illogical in English. But when you consider what other countries call "tanks" you get a lot of different names. When directly translated, it may or may not even be a tank. Often times depending on your language, it is retroactively classified based on your language's system. France call them "assault vehicles" while the Germans call them "armored fighting vehicles. The literal translation for Sensha in Japanese is "war vehicle" but is understood as equivalent to tank. And as you pointed out, in English, tank originated as a codename meaning from "water tank." In Chinese however, uses the English as a loanword. This is particularly notable with warships. The Soviets have a massively different naming scheme than the NATO one. Whenever we translate soviet ships, we classify it to Western/NATO standards. But they don't use stuff like DDG or CGs or whatever. Kirov class is called a "heavy missile cruiser" where as the west calls it a guided missile cruiser or battlecruiser. Kara-class cruiser was called by the soviets "large anti-submarine warfare ship." US at some point considered Frigates as larger than destroyers. The British had it the other way around. US classed the Alaska-class as large cruisers but everyone else called it a battlecruiser. The Japanese B-65 equivalent design was classed as a "super cruiser" but also called a battlecruiser in the west. Deutschland was called "armored ship" by the Germans but classed as a "cruiser" in the rest of the world with the media calling it a "pocket battleship." The arbitrary nature of classification is even crazier when you look into other languages.
I was a 92A, Automated Logistics, for 14 years (ended up in Electronic Warfare). Computer, Digital is the dark horse winner for weird names. Because it means EVERYTHING. Everything from a laptop, to a sniper calculator, to a receiver for a tracker/JCR/whatever it is now, to ANYTHING with a digital component.
My grandfather Frank Cormier served from 1937 until Dec 1945 aboard the Heavy Fast Cruiser (CA-37) USS Tuscaloosa his battle station as a gunners mate on in the #2 turret at an 8 inch Rifle. His duty station (while not in combat) was as the crane operator, specifically recovering the catapult shot Spotter planes the Cruiser carried. 8 inch rifle. 9 on board. Yep, they were called Rifles, short for rifled barrel as opposed to a smooth bore.
Another example of this blurring of what to call something is the e-bike vs a motorcycle, especially an e motorcycle. It seems top speed might be a way to do that, but there are e bikes that can go 40 mph so that further blurs that distinction. For me having pedals (and pedal assist) and being able to lift it can thus carry it might be a way to distinguish the two. But then there are cargo e-bikes, vs e trikes, and quads to further muddy the waters. And is a bike (whatever kind) different than say larger vehicle such as a Humvee or is it a unique type of vehicle in that a Humvee (or the like) can carry bikes. And a bike can be lain flat or be hid in bushes but not a Humvee but not so much a large motorcycle in that its too heavy to really do that well. And a bike can easily be pushed into a building through a regular doorway, where a larger vehicle needs a garage size doorway and a truck need an even larger doorway like a hangar door.
The funny thing to me about all of this is that the reason we call them “tanks” at all is because that was what was written on the crates they were originally shipped to France in, back when they were still a secret new weapon we didn’t want the Kaiser to know about. (At least that’s what my yr10 history teacher told me 30 years ago.)
I'm absolutely in the camp of "if it does the job" in terms of function, but in terms of design, I'd say a "tank" has armor and a gun that is more than just a fixed mounted version of an infantry version.
During the first few exercises, with the Brigade, I was to deploy with to Afghanistan. Our 3 man Forward Observer team (FiSTer?), in an M113. Was used like just another vehicle with a M2 on top. The platoon commanders, had no concept of our expertise. And our officer, was quiet like a mouse, just following along. Artillery you say? Well that's something the Company Commander arranges, according to my "extensive previous training, on Company Exercises". They did all eventually learn, and we were put to good use during deployment. Probably mostly, because of continually pressuring our Officer, to man up, follow them physically when ever possible, and presenting Fires solutions, to any problem, on any command meeting. In the meen time, when ever possible, when he was doing that. We'd hone our paper work skills, in the vehicle, rather then taking a break. Moral of the story, dunno, you tell me.
Honestly, the militaries and governments do whatever they want with names. The MG42 was a light machine gun, medium machine gun, and heavy machine gun. The classification only changed depending on what sort of stand it was put on, and you didn't even need adaptors to swap stands as far as I know. That said, my favourite WW2 example for absurd naming is the M4, the M4, the M4, as well as the M4, and the M4. You know, the tank, the bayonet, the tank, the carbine, the halftrack, the truck, and probably quite a few others that were all in service at the exact same time.
I can say the same about the M2. As the in the IFV, the light tank, the medium tank, the half track, the HMG, the tripod, the mine, the carbine, the mortar, the flamethrower, the compass and the target rocket.
Is it sad that I get a wave of excitement when I hear someone use the phrase “could not care less” instead of “could care less”? Sense was made, thank you
As someone who's never been promoted beyond corporal, the right answer is always gonna be whatever your immediate chain of command wants the piece of equipment/platform/rifle to self-identify as. (Even if other higher enlisted/commissioned ranks and written literature disagree with each other)
Well the Carl Gustav *is* a rifle, as in it uses a gunpowder cartridge to fire a bullet. It's just a really big bullet, and some of the gas vents out the back to counter recoil.
reminds me of the same eternal conversation in the Marine side of things. what was USS Alaska and Guam? they was Battlecruiser size, had Battlecruiser armour, armament and speed, and was designed for a Battlecruiser role. so therefor they are Large Cruisers! (and the rest of the world disagrees... but name was mostly because the US Navy had not been operating any Battlecruisers before (Lexington-class was all converted to CV's before finished) and they had to give em a name that people in the marine would understand...)
Interesting video. One thing that wasn't covered enough is the role of logistics in defining the role of platforms. In the Army, there's a logistics document used by planners called a "horse-blanket". I don't remember the exact official name for this, but it wen into explicit detail about what the logistics package are for each platform. The equipment designated for each platform determines their role. For example, in a Stryker troop of a Cavalry regiment, equipment in a commander's variant is different from the equipment on a reconnaissance variant. The Commander's variant will have more radios and command and control equipment installed, where as the reconnaissance variant will have long range sights and more armament. There is a fire control variant used by the forward observer teams to provide long range fire support to the maneuver teams from long range artillery support assets. More fodder for the nerds.
And let's not forget, that different countries can classify things differently. Like Gaermany during WW2 classified tanks by the main gun caliber. So from a German point of view PzKpfw V Panther is a medium tank, while T-34-85 is a heavy one, despite being 13 tons lighter than the Panther.
Would an FN Minimi change category if your belt runs out and you put in a box mag? What about an RPK with a 70 rd drum vs one with a 30 rd box mag? What about the M27 IAR? It's a select-fire 5.56 rifle based on the HK416 planed as partial replacement for the M249. Is than a LMG, SAW, AR, or DMR? What about the L86 LSW, a heavy version of the SA80, which was planned as SAW replacement for the FN MAG GPMG, but it's accuracy lead it to be used as DMR.
Prior to the F88/EF88 Austeyr being the standard Australian Army Infantryman's Assault Rifle, when we used L1A1 SLR's (and a smattering of M16's here and there, usually for lead scouts, radio operators and officers), the LMG (Light Machine Gun) of a standard Australian Army Rifle Platoon was the MAG58 GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun). (M60's as LMG also but that was more of a Vietnam War thing because of availability of US military stock/compatibility there over UK military stock. MAG58 was rarely used in Vietnam). Since the introduction of the F89 Minimi into Australian Army Rifle Platoons (within the 3 Rifle Companies of an Infantry Battalion) as their standard LMG/Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) (and also in line doctrinaly with replacement of the L1A1 SLR with said F88/EF88 Austeyr that came into service here just prior to the F89), the MAG58 GPMG found itself elevated to the role of a Medium Machine Gun/Extended Range Machine Gun (ERMG) in the DFSW (Direct Fire Support Weapons) Platoon role. DFSW Platoon intergrated into the Support Company within an Infantry Battalion. With improved optics and use of tripods in the DFSW Platoon, the MAG58's capabilities are improved and extended greatly. Harassing/supressing fire out to 3000m. M2 Cal 50., Javelin FGM-148 ATGM, Carl Gustav 84mm Recol. Rifle Direct Fire Support Weapons and MK47 Automatic Grenade Launchers also found within the DFSW Platoon. From there, an insane amount of death and destruction dealt out! The DFSW Platoon punches well above their weight. MAG58 GPMG is the king. As far as MAG58 role changed, also it all makes sense within a Rifle Platoon as both L1A1 and MAG58/M60 used 7.62mm NATO and F88 and F89 used now both use 5.56mm NATO. It made logistical life a bit easier. 🇦🇺💪
It is kind of fitting that tank as classification is confusing, as the name originally came from water tanks, as a method of obfuscating what the line item of military budget their development was being spent on.
To Be fair the carl gustov. the recoilless rifle name thing goes back to world war 1. Where one was named the Davis gun which didn't shoot rockets or missiles. It actually shot lead balls and then some how over time it developed into things shooting shells.
I hate the Yoda naming in the military. If they invented the jeep again it would probably be called "vehicle light support reconnaissance fast untracked" or vlsrfu
My favorite example of something being called something it's not would defiantly be amphibious assault ships being called aircraft carriers. Yes they both carry aircraft but they have very different roles.
Why are things named weirdly? "We don't need anymore bazookas but we have all the funding for a rifle!" - Congress. "Congress check out this new rifle that fires bazooka rounds!" - U.S. Army /Funded!
a Light Tank and a Main Battle Tank have two different purposes. The way the US Army describes the M10 fits the role of a 'Light Tank' to a T. heh. Anyway in my opinion, the reason why the Army doesn't want to call it a Light Tank is so it can be approved by Congress. Congress is full of morons. Imagine having to explain to idiots while they are seeing Russian tanks burning that the Army needs not just one kind of tank, but two. Im already getting a headache imagining the frustration.
The M10 is a fire support vehicle or an assault gun. A light tank is made for maneuver warfare. The M1 Abrams is actually faster than the M10 Booker. The M10 is actually made for a specific role while tanks are flexible. Also, the M2 Bradley is meant to carry people and offer fight with an infantry squad so it is an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). The M3 Bradley is an armoured reconnaissance vehicle. The US calls the M3 an Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV)...probably because the units that it's in are still classified as cavalry because of tradition and cavalry units were historically reconnaissance units.
In ww2 the USA alone had: The M3 Medium Tank, also had an M3 Sight, and its 75m gun...WAS ALSO Gun, Tank, M3. To even further confuse the issue... you had the Light Tank M3. The Half-track M3, the GREASE GUN M3. Etc...etc. it must have made requisitions very complicated.
Basically common language and military language. Just like anything with a gun and tracks is a tank in common language (sometimes just one of the two) any soldier on a horse used to risk being called cavalry when that was a thing. Just how laguage works.
Here I thought you might point out that many recoiless rifles, including things like the 106mm M40, aren’t actually rifles at all. The 106mm recoiless round is fin stabilized only to increase HEAT effectiveness. Yet the Army classified it as a recoiless rifle.
Remember that the 7.62 is also much smaller than stuff like .48-55 Winchester, .450 Rigby, .45-70 Govt, .505 Gibbs, .577 Martiny-Henry, 8x55 mmR or 9.3x57 mm. Most of the 6, 6.5 and 6.8 mm cartridges clearly fall into the intermediate range. And let's not forget that the original idea for NATO was to use the FAL in .280, and even ideas in .276 and 6.25 were worked on. But certain US higher ups thought that was too weak and they need a cartridge with mroe stopping power, like .308 Winchester, only to then switch to 5.56 mm shortly after. And that .280 cartrige wasn't so different from 6.8 mm SPC, so we're basically back to what people thought already in the 60s.
The IFV vs tank is so much easier in Finnish. If its tracked and armoured, its a tank. (well, "armourwagon") So, IFV with tracks is "assaultarmourwagon", and if its wheeled its a "assaultarmourvehicle". The words in finnish are Panssarivaunu (PSV), Rynnäkköpanssarivaunu (RPSV) and Rynnäkköpanssariajoneuvo (RPSAJON). Yeah, the words are long but it's not like we actually use those names other than in like a class or something. Either abbreviations or shorter nicknames.)
To make things extra fun when translating, the Germans call every armored vehicle a Panzer (whch often gets incorrectly translated as tank), derrived from Panzerung (armor). A tank is called a Kampfpanzer (translates to combat armored vehicle), an IFV is called a Schützenpanzer (infantryman's armored vehicle), an armored artillery vehicle that is capable of elevation above and below 45° a Panzerhaubitze and so on with different variants of armored vehicles. Disclaimer: this is Wikipedia verified and augmented armchair knowledge, compiled here for your convenience.
A benefit of persnickety naming conventions is that they force people to ask, "why?" Unfortunately, not everyone is thereby inspired to dig deeper, but at least they have been given a reason to. The problem with saying, "It's a tracked gun-box. That's good enough." is that people are more likely to read an article by our highly objective journalist community that says, "Tracked Box M-10 Cheaper, Lighter and Newer Than the Abrams: So Why Are We Still Buying It?" and believe that we really should replace that M1 with M-10 -- 10 is bigger-er.
i think the main issue a lot of people have is with civilians calling any armed vehicle (heavily armed and armored or not) a "tank" i've seen countless people calling MRAPs "tanks" (usually in reference to their use as police vehicles)
I think the best example of sticking to naming by role and units it gets assigned to, was in interwar France. They had decided that, no, the cavalry absolutely doesn't get tanks. But they could get other vehicles that can defend themselves. Such as an automitrailleuse. Literally a machinegun carrier. So they bought some of these machinegun carriers, which true to their name had a machinegun in the turret. Oh, and a coaxial anti-tank cannon to go with that machinegun. But they totally were a machinegun carrier. Said so right in the name :p
Reminds me of the russian aviation cruiser. Because Turkey controls the Bosporus and can deny aircraft carriers passage. So the USSR just decided if they put some guns and missiles on it, it isn't an aircraft carrier. It's a cruiser with a flight deck. Or how Japan doesn't have any carriers. Because those are offensive equipment, something the post WWII constitution forbids. They have helicopter destroyers with a full length flight deck and are planned to operate F-35 in the near future. Totally not aircraft carriers. Or how the german navy has 7200 ton frigates and 1800 ton corvettes, those are displacement typical for WWII cruisers and destroyers and the frigates outweigh even most modern day destroyers.
0:17 Surrender, or not to surrender? That is the question! Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep, to surrender or to fight? To fight, and do not go gentle into that good fight, Old age should burn and rave at close of day, Rage, rage against the dying of those whilst you fight!
IFV = Actively fight along side infantry, usually has a larger 25-40mm cannon + coax at minimum APC = Drop infantry off at dismount point, may provide some supporting fire, usually has a .50 cal or AGL at most, *usually* thinner armor. That said at least in American doctrine you’ll see APCs more actively engaged than what Russia does with theirs. We have a tendency to still treat non-IFVs as IFVs.
Remember though that a lot Soviet/Russian gear was/is referred to by us by NATO reporting names which is different to what the Sov/Russians call it. I'm not sure if that is true with tanks, but it is with most other Sov/Russian kit. E.g. the SA-6 Gainful is/was the 2K12 in Sov/Russian service. And I think the T-- thing is pretty unusual, most of the time it was just a serial number. e.g. AT-1 Snapper, AT-2 Swatter, AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel or RPG-1, RPG-2, RPG-7, RPG-16 etc.
@@1337flite with infantry gear they just go with "vaguely what it does" + "who designed it" + "year it was introduced" AK-47 just means "Kalashnikov's automatic(rifle) from 47
From what i have understand: Everything is a tank if you are brave enough but if you use bicycle with fireworks and armor attached to it as way to storm trenchens and fear the enemy you will technically be using a "tank" but bicycle is not designed for this purpose which mean you are the "creative" one and probably should have read what bicycle is used for in first place For example ukrainians use this franch "tank" on big wheels to storm tranches and lets just say they should've listened more carefully
My main takeaway from this video is that I am now aware of two separate individuals of historical significance with the last name "Christmas. I'm not sure what to do with this information.
Basically, the word tank refers to vessel for holding liquid and as tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun are not vessels for holding liquids none of them are technically tanks. If a military calls something a tank to them, it is a tank but other people don't have to agree and personally I don't care what it is called I just want it close to me if I am in a combat zone.
Also you say "Talking about logistical trucks isn't the most exciting thing ever." I disagree! I think they're wicked cool! Imagine the cool SHTF vehicle or camper you could build out of one of those beasts! 🖤
What piece of military equipment do you think wins the "Category doesn't make sense" award?
SADM :)
The combat tested drilldoe
Whichever category that includes a tuna sandwich making you feel warm and fuzzy inside...
Charms.
I might be wrong, but i seem to remember learning that the ShAK-12 was technically considered an "assult smg" when it was designed. Even though its in 12.7
as a grunt we called them all "tank" because its an armored box shooting at us and we have no means of killing it.
Fair enough lol
as a Grunt, we called them all what they are, because we were adequately trained and details matter.
@politenessman3901
So you called them "tank" then. Good.
@@TheGrinningViking If it was a tank, yes.
Except for the, you know, literally dozens of anti-armor weapons available to the infantry.
"The military is weird". I'm going to stop you right there.
I work in commercial aviation. We are also a bit weird.
My wife overhears me talking to an airline mate and hasn't a clue what we are saying.
The military may be weird, but it is predictable. I’ve worked on manuals for both military and civilian clients and the civilian side requirements can change suddenly and for no rational reason.
If you put it this way, yes😅
I've heard many INSANE stories from the german Bundeswehr and those guys were just sitting around empty handed, you wouldn't want to imagine them having PTSD and ammo😂
Fun fact! The AT-4 is neither a recoilless rifle nor a rocket launcher. It's a smoothbore recoilless gun.
But the manual says rocket launcher... because it's apparently just the M72 manual with a few words changed in some places.
@@Del_S Do US manuals call the at4 a rocket launcher?
@@Resardiv Apparently some of them did early on at least. Might have changed since, but given that the average grunt doesn't really care about the specifics, the idea it's a rocket launcher is a common error still. And besides, it doesn't really matter much, it's still a launcher that makes a kaboom down range. Or if it malfunctions extremely badly, a kaboom right beside you..
@@Resardiv The manual specifically calls it a ' anti-tank rocket, fin stabilised, launcher'. Pretty much everyone else just calls it some variation of "disposable, shoulder fired, anti-tank(or armor) launcher".
In the summary of changes report it, is the armies opinion: To be a recoilless rifle you kind of have to be rifled, which the m136/AT-4 is not. (factually correct) Recoilless gun is an obsolete term that is included under RR, like field gun for small artillery organic to the infantry. (sure?) We just use gun-howitzers or large mortars in their place these days. (true) The tube is called a launcher, therefore its a rocket launcher. (wut?)
If RCL Gun is an obsolete term and has become a part of RR than it must be a RR. On the grounds it would have been a RCL Gun and not a rocket launcher because it doesn't fire a rocket. Probably just standard Ordinance semantics and some officer mad he isn't as smart as he thinks he is after he got dunked on for calling it a rocket launcher by some SPC.
Interstingly the Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams are rifles, the M1A1 and M1A2 are smoothbores.
Well the Carl Gustav isn't a rocket launcher because it doesn't launch rockets. It fire shells. Down a rifled barrel. Like a gun. But because a normal cannon that big would rip you apart it diverts some of the blast behind you to counter the recoil, which is why it's called a 'recoilless rifle'. The name for that one actually makes 100% perfect sense.
ok well you nailed that on the head and exposed me as a fraud that didn't watch and commented out of confused indignation before finishing the video.
Carl Gs are why SEAL Eddie Gallagher got butt hurt 😖 & blocked me on Soc Media. 🤳🏼 It's a long story. Lol....
@@DavidLLambertmobile Often times soldiers don't know much about the weapon systems they come into contact every day. Like they know how to use it and do what they need to do well but the technical specifications, how it works, and so on is usually missing. I have a family member who was in the navy and he knew a lot about the stuff he worked on or the procedural stuff but basically a laymen on everything else. It's kind of the difference between a professional driver versus the mechanic/technician that does the repair, and then the engineer who designed the car in the first place. The engineer might not even have a driver license, but the driver can't fix let alone design a car even if his life depended on it. I think there's just a weird perception that the public has of soldiers; that they automatically know everything military related.
When I serve the army I was GRG shooter.
(Grenade launcher Carl Gustaf 84mm) then it was 14,3 plus grenade 3,5 = 17,8 kg fully loaded.
Today less than 7 kg plus cartridge weigh 3,1 to 4 kg so around 10 kg fully loaded.
Effective firing range : 150 m to 2100 m using rocket-boosted laser guided ammunition.
Very fun to shoot. I had 95% accuracy of all my shoots if I may bragg.
Also we use 9mm tracer rounds ammo. But at max 100 m distant in to paper targets. And also 20 mm metal trainings rounds in to paper / metal targets, but at max 350 m distant.
SWEDISH Carl Gustav 84mm first fielded 1948
GRG is an abbreviation of Swedish word GRanatGevär
(GRenade Rifle).
I also used AK4 back then as side arm.
The venturi is such a brilliantly effective and simple system, Thank you Daniel Bernoulli
It's largely a matter of perspective. If you're shooting at a machine gun emplacement with an M10 Booker, it's an Infantry Support Vehicle. However, if you're one of the poor sods manning said machine gun emplacement, it's a friggin' tank!
Simply calling it a rifle is a bit rude.
His name is Carl.
Do you want people calling you, "that male human?"
Carl Gustaf. Charlie G among friends. Carl was his son.
The rifle is not named after the current king Carl Gustaf of Sweden though, that would be too easy. No it is named after Carl X Gustav 1622-1660 . Yes the F is used on the rifle but not on the guy it is named after.... but the kings "v" is prounounced "f". Also the king was not the tenth guy named Carl Gustav, 1-6 were just fantasy inventions made up a few years before his birth , so he was actually number 4....But the first Carl 1130-1167 called himself Carl II and we don't know who was first... Anyway that means the current Carl XVI Gustaf is either Carl X Gustaf or Carl XI Gustaf. But he is not 84mm or rifled :(
@@a.bastianwiik5592Well, I suppose it's OK to have a king that is not the right caliber.
I'm not sure though.
Sweden has seen better days.
He should be ashamed for not measuring up.
@@a.bastianwiik5592 Carl Gustav armory from the city of Carl Gustav made the weapon. Isnt it odd that Americans like to name their rifles Springfeild for some reason? :)
Reminds me of how the IJN referred to auto cannons as machine guns because cannons go on ships, not aircraft.
The English term "machine gun" is weird anyway. "Guns" are a type of artillery piece (that are called cannons in most other languages) so logically auto cannons should be called "machine guns", and machine guns should be called "machine rifles". Then there's auto rifles, but those are a specific type of light box fed machine gun.
@@fridrekr7510
Yes but then you come down to the reality that we call cannons, rifles, pistols, machine guns, and submachine guns
The IJA also called the Type 92 Jyu-Sokosha an "armored car" even though it was obviously designed like a light tank.
The reason:
The Jyu-Sokosha was to be used by the cavalry arm, and military politics demanded that "tanks" could only be operated by the infantry.
Once you bring in other languages, you realise how silly it is to die on any of these tuffets, since those languages have completely different illogicalities and inconsistencies.
It turns out that not only are all words made up, but so are their definitions.
@@fridrekr7510 These days the difference between an autocannon and a machine gun is that a machine gun fires solid projectiles while an autocannon fires shells which explode.
"the toyta land cruser is a tank." my brothers, you have seen the light...
I would probably call it an IFV, because it lacks the armor to be something like an APC.
On the other hand, I would consider the Merkava, PT-76 and AMX-10RC tanks. They all have armor and a big gun.
Oh, and by IFV I mean improvised fighting vehicle, not infantry fighting vehicle.
8:35 I dare you to call the Carl Gustaf a rocket launcher in front of a SNCO.
When we had the Carl Gustav in the British army it was "The " Charlie G" or the "84"
Meanwhile the AT4 is called a rocket launcher because they just copy-pasted a bunch of stuff from the M72 manual. Oh, and the 84mm recoilless rifle has rocket assisted projectiles available so it's a non rocket launcher that can technically launch rockets.
Japan sdf just call it multi-purpose gun
In MG classifications, during WWII the difference between a German light machine gun and a German heavy machine gun was whether you stuck it on a bipod or a tripod. It was otherwise the exact same MG34/42 either way.
germans didn't have any MG bigger then 34/42 like we had the 50...
@@russr they didn't have to have one. their differentiation was doctrinal, not by caliber. gun is man portable and fired without a tripod/mount = light machine gun. gun is not man portable and fired from a tripod/mount = heavy machine gun.
same thing as at 2:26 in the video.
And during WWI, "Heavy Machineguns" were artillery pieces mounted on wheeled carriages (why they are called "guns"); tripods were the hallmark of "medium machineguns." This is the framework that would hold in the US, with the "Heavy" classification expanding to include vehicle mounted and large caliber options. Arguably, the M60 was interchangeably a "Light," "Medium" or "Heavy" Machinegun depending on how it was used, but because they all used the same parts, and because those terms already apply to existing equipment, it was easier on procurement and logistics to call it something new: the "General Purpose Machinegun."
Whenever we would layout the equipment for the fire support team, we had a ton of different sets of equipment that each came with a complete set of cables. All these cables were unique, and as far as I remember, rarely interchangable with any cables for any other task. Problem was, when we looked at our property book, all those cables would be listed was 15 different versions of "Cable, Digital, Special Purpose" or maybe "Special Purpose Cable, Digital". Reference images were either photocopier fried to hell and unusable or just not provided. So you just had to make educated guesses and frankly fudge the numbers a bit to pass layouts.
We never lied, we had all the cables we needed, but when the commander would come out and read off our items, it was never very clear exactly what he wanted us to show him, no shot he even knew what he was asking to see. He just wanted to see 12 cables of one shape, 15 cables of another, and so on. I don't think I ever actually counted up all our shit exactly the same way twice. All an exercise in accountability theater right up until we were deploying. Now all of a sudden not even the senior NCOs can agree on which item is which, and we need to account for every ear plug and AA battery we pack onto these cargo containers. Not a fun week.
The photographs of the cables in an FM pissed me off to no end. They would literally just have the exact same picture and nomenclature for ten different cables, even though they were all different. We’d either have to get lucky with googling them or find the one guy who actually knew the differences between them just from the name.
@@Justin_Taylor why didn't you just tag the cables with clour coded labels and then mark the socket it shouuld be slotted into on the devices with the same colour code in tiny dots of enamel paints (if nessesary, using paints that would look distinct from eachother in NVG)
That's what I do as a volounteer militia radio specialist. And I don't ask permission, I just inform my squad leader and CO what I've done to improve my field expediency and why.
@@SonsOfLorgar Because we never actually used the cables for anything, we would pull them out for inspection and put them back in storage and we did label them with tags, but then the tags would get ripped off, or labels smudged, or half the time people were stealing our cables, or it would simply get lost. An M2A3 probably has at least 30 different BII cables. Multiply that by four vehicles I was in charge of and it just gets worse.
A tale as old as time
‘This kinda doesn’t look like the picture….’
‘Well it’s gonna be what’s in the picture today, cause it’s 8 in the evening and I’m not trying to do this again tomorrow’
@@AOIATSGA LMAO this is true even in the civilian world. Trying to do maintenance on the car and the diagram shown on the manual doesn't even match the fuze box on the car. Eventually we managed since the relative position of the fuzes were the same but the box containing it was shaped completely differently. Same make, model, and year too but somehow different.
wait you're a bradley crewman!? that's actually so fuckin awesome i LOVE the bradley!
Yup I was a Bradley Platoon leader
Ukraine are using Bradleys as tanks
Tracks for wheels: check
Armor all around(lightly): check
Turret that spins 360 on top: check
Big gun on turret: check
Survey says- not a tank
I would even drop the track requirement. It's useful for some tasks, but nowhere essential. The armor and the big gun, that's where I would but the line.
Is armored? Yes
Is armed? Yes
Is tank. Simple.
*gestures at a AA half track* behold, a tank.
Ah, the good old airborne tank conundrum! When I was at Bragg in the early 2000s as a 19D cavalry scout in A 1/17th, we were being prepped to receive the XM8 MGS mobile gun system, a "not tank" infantry support vehicle with bolt-on armor packages that could be air-dropped from a C-130 and fixed up on the ground. We got a handful of 19K Armored Crewman tankers, all jump-qualified, to go with it. The idea was to replace the Sheridan. The MGS wasn't a "tank" for a lot of reasons, but among them was it's weight and role of being air-dropped, supporting infantry assaults, and not being designed to go up against other tanks. Congress eventually decided to scrap the acquisition and so our airborne tank platoon never materialized. I think the MGS gun system became a part of the Stryker 105mm system a few years later.
When we deployed to OIF a few years later as light infantry/cavalry, we fell onto M2A2 ODS Bradleys in theater, but being light airborne troops we didn't really know how to integrate them into our skillset. We ended up using them more like assault guns or light tanks, supporting infantry advances with heavier firepower, but rarely actually carried troops like an IFV/APC would. We put one per platoon for the additional firepower of the 25mm Bushmaster and would occasionally lead an assault with them for their armor since the other victors were all HMMWVs, but then the Brads would pull off and use their optics and superior range to cover while assault teams finished the close-in movement on foot or in trucks. So,, a lot of the discussion boils down to how it's being used more than anything else, as the video says. That being said, anyone who calls a Brad a tank unironically should be mocked.
I called my gun a "gat" and no one had an issue with it. Moment anyone said "gun" and it was an immediate "we're not on a fucking battleship private!" from everyone lol.
Kind of reminds me of a movie. Tanker pulls up and tells the infantry if we see a tiger we're out of here, we only have 3 inches of armor. Infantry yells back "how thick do you think this shirt is?" It's just perception.
Wait, peas are fruit?
When I first read that peas are fruit I wanted to throw up.
@@Justin_Taylor 😂🤣
vegetable is a culinary term not a botanical term, lots of things are fruits that don't taste what a culinary fruit should be according to the platonic ideal
@@Orinslayer I guess vegetable is also a legal term. Sonce legally speaking, tomatos are vegetables, even though they are seed bearing fruits.
No, Peas are not fruits.
The pod is technically a "fruit" but peas are seeds and pod producing plants are considered Legumes (Beans, Peas, Lentils)
It's almost like saying a mushroom is a fruit / veg.. It's neither. It's not even a plant.
I've heard from other vets that most vets know barely more than fuckall about firearms in general. They just know how to use what they're trained on and are taught which rounds go to which weapon and what types of shells go boom, fizz, zoom, or lamp. Hell, they're not even allowed to tinker with their own weapons for the most part, just keep them clean.
That said, when you dig into variants and sub-variants of different weapons, vehicles, and equipment the semantics starts to actually get VERY important because the name will denote the unit's specific capabilities. The F35-A for example does NOT have the ability to take off and land vertically like the F-35-B does
An AAV to a normie just looks like another "tank" until they realize that an AAV can swim and a tank can't. Pretty important difference.
And we all know that the military is OBSESSED with trying to come up with the one single tank or gun or plane or uniform to end them all and can do literally everything so we don't have to buy and track all these complicated variations but history proves that doesn't work so well and you'll always need specialized equipment for specialized jobs with some flexible capability worked in.
Chieftain is right though. As long as the people with the gear know their gear and do their jobs it's not an issue. If their gear is lacking they will inevitably improvise and new weapons and tactics will organically develop (hopefully not so lacking they just get guys killed)
That always just reminds me of the M113. It's whole purpose was to drive up deliver troops and GTFO. But due to the need for some sort of fire support, troops started using their "armored" personnel carrier as fire support platforms resulting in them being proto-IFVs. So they effectively were using a vehicle never designed for a direct fight as if it stand up slugger, the result was a lot of folks died and M113 getting a reputation for being a shitty vehicle. At least a large part of the reputation was it's use outside of it's intended role. So calling the M10 booker a tank might convince some folks it is a tank and result in them using it like a tank when it really shouldn't.
The M10 Booker has a cannon that is mounted on a turret, it has tracks, it BY DEFINITION is a tank, and then on top of that it weighs half as much as other tanks therefore you could call it… light, it’s a tank that is comparatively light, it’s a light tank
This is giving me a panic attack. Why is the 240 not a medium machine gun? If not what is a medium machine gun?
Well, its not a Tuna sandwich, but it is a salad. Perhaps Aubergine?
It is a medium machine gun according to the army and FN. I think "GPMG" is more of a wikipedia term
More of the usage behind it. It would be closer to an MMG if it was only used by troops on the ground, but the base weapon is used on aircraft, tanks, trucks in dozens of different configurations/mounts etc. It's a GPMG first, an MMG second.
@@Justin_Taylor The M240 is an MMG (TC 3-22.240 is titled "Medium Machine Gun")
I've never heard it called a GPMG except on wikipedia
As a 29 year Army vet, who was in when we replaced M60s with M240s, we always call 240s GPMGs....
The Carl-G isn't a rocket launcher. It shoots big bullets out of a rifled barrel. By any metric, it is a recoilless rifle.
When I serve the army I was GRG shooter.
(Grenade launcher Carl Gustaf 84mm) then it was 14,3 plus grenade 3,5 = 17,8 kg fully loaded.
Today less than 7 kg plus cartridge weigh 3,1 to 4 kg so around 10 kg fully loaded.
Effective firing range : 150 m to 2100 m using rocket-boosted laser guided ammunition.
Very fun to shoot. I had 95% accuracy of all my shoots if I may bragg.
Also we use 9mm tracer rounds ammo. But at max 100 m distant in to paper targets. And also 20 mm metal trainings rounds in to paper / metal targets, but at max 350 m distant.
SWEDISH Carl Gustav 84mm first fielded 1948
GRG is an abbreviation of Swedish word GRanatGevär
(GRenade Rifle).
I also used AK4 back then as side arm.
@@tomeng9520Sounds fun.
I do love the Swedish naming scheme when it comes to equipment. Most of the time it's literally just "Detailed Name" and Number.
Our current service rifle is named AK5C: AK just stands for Automat Karbin I.E Automatic Carbine, the 5 just says it's the 5th type of model that was either adopted or used in trials. AK 1 through 3 were only tests. The C means it's the 3rd variant of that model.
The number in the name can also just be what year it was adopted. We have no light/heavy machine guns for example, it's all just Machine Gun XX.
carl gustav, a rocket launcher that don't even shot rockets.. 😂
It did have the heat-rap that give it extended range from a rocket boost
@@monkeyfingerslocksport6429 what i know is that carl Gustavs is a recoiless weapon, that may be true but that doesn't make carl gustavs a rocket launcher per say right?
Also the bloke some local girls asked for at the guard room on occasion.
@@kimmylarsson8496Not really, it’s not firing a “rocket” it’s firing something very similar to a normal shell.
In the army I served in, the Carl Gustav was designated as an 84mm recoilless cannon.
Botanically all vegetables are fruits basically... vegetable isn't a category its either a fruit a flower a stalk or a tuber
I rode Bradleys back when they were new. The amount of time it took for everyone to come to grips with the fact that it is not a baby tank was hilarious.
Imagine not being able to dispatch an m1120A2R1 because your license says m1120A2P1. Specific names...
The British Army, during WWI (or if you prefer, The Great War) had armoured (using the British spelling) "landships" that they wanted to keep secret so they referred to this vehicle as a water carrier or "tank".
One of the only good things the British English has over my American English.
If we did follow the landships naming scheme, what would ya'll call the tank categories? Would we see stuff like HMLS (his/her majesty's landships) Cornwall or USLS Houston (United States landship)
@@LateNightHam Probably not since we didn’t name smaller craft like LSTs and patrol boats. They only got numbers.
And the original tanks came in both male and female varieties depending upon what gun was fitted
Don't let Ryan Mcbeth see this video. He had an embolism when a civilian reporter called an assault rifle a machine gun.
I love Ryan but I don't get annoyed when ordinary people who haven't been in a military or aren't super nerdy about military stuff like me say machine gun when they're looking at an M16 or tank when they're looking at a BMP or a Bradley, they have no real reason to know the correct term and it gets the point across. Completely different when it comes to politicians and policymakers though, they should not waffle about something they don't fully understand
@@FabianMacGintyONeill I dio. If they are reporting on the military they need to know what they are talking about
@@ROBERTNABORNEY Oh yeah, if you’re a journalist doing a serious report, same rules apply to you as politicians. If you misreport a story that involves firearms, it could lead to the public believing things about firearms that aren’t true. I’m only saying I don’t get annoyed when someone’s just chatting about it, if they’re in a professional position they should do the research.
Hm, legally, wouldn't all select fire rifles be considered machine guns in the US?
The 'tank' was never a tank, 'tank' was a 'secret code name' for the project.
Yes, ‘what can we (the Admiralty, their project) call this thing? Land Ships?’
‘Isn’t it secret? We better give it a cover name, how about a transport under armor for liquids, water or maybe fuel?’
Panzer simply means armour ( Panzerschiff- armoured ship, Panzerkampfwagen - armoured figting vehicle (Waggon).
Yea, it's already confusing and illogical in English. But when you consider what other countries call "tanks" you get a lot of different names. When directly translated, it may or may not even be a tank. Often times depending on your language, it is retroactively classified based on your language's system. France call them "assault vehicles" while the Germans call them "armored fighting vehicles. The literal translation for Sensha in Japanese is "war vehicle" but is understood as equivalent to tank. And as you pointed out, in English, tank originated as a codename meaning from "water tank." In Chinese however, uses the English as a loanword.
This is particularly notable with warships. The Soviets have a massively different naming scheme than the NATO one. Whenever we translate soviet ships, we classify it to Western/NATO standards. But they don't use stuff like DDG or CGs or whatever. Kirov class is called a "heavy missile cruiser" where as the west calls it a guided missile cruiser or battlecruiser. Kara-class cruiser was called by the soviets "large anti-submarine warfare ship."
US at some point considered Frigates as larger than destroyers. The British had it the other way around. US classed the Alaska-class as large cruisers but everyone else called it a battlecruiser. The Japanese B-65 equivalent design was classed as a "super cruiser" but also called a battlecruiser in the west. Deutschland was called "armored ship" by the Germans but classed as a "cruiser" in the rest of the world with the media calling it a "pocket battleship."
The arbitrary nature of classification is even crazier when you look into other languages.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Sometimes it's just intentional like the JSDF's Izumo class of "totally not an aircraft carrier" destroyers.
Excuse me, is that a 120mm smoothbore cannon on your tuna sandwich, or is that mayonnaise?
Sorry, it is a 105mm chickensallad! 😄
L11 rifled, because we're a little more cultured. 😂
At the end of the day, tonk go boom
10:39 i spit😂 my coffee, that earned a sub
I was a 92A, Automated Logistics, for 14 years (ended up in Electronic Warfare). Computer, Digital is the dark horse winner for weird names. Because it means EVERYTHING. Everything from a laptop, to a sniper calculator, to a receiver for a tracker/JCR/whatever it is now, to ANYTHING with a digital component.
I think my favorite "small arm" is the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun
For the Navy it is. The Canada put the thing on their Arctic Patrol Ship as the main gun. Utterly useless against everything but polar bears.
What about the Fat Mac .950 JDJ sporting rifle, with a cartridge adopted from 20 mm Vulcan rounds.
My grandfather Frank Cormier served from 1937 until Dec 1945 aboard the Heavy Fast Cruiser (CA-37) USS Tuscaloosa his battle station as a gunners mate on in the #2 turret at an 8 inch Rifle. His duty station (while not in combat) was as the crane operator, specifically recovering the catapult shot Spotter planes the Cruiser carried.
8 inch rifle. 9 on board. Yep, they were called Rifles, short for rifled barrel as opposed to a smooth bore.
Love the way you shoehorned in the Zizek clip. Classssss...
Another example of this blurring of what to call something is the e-bike vs a motorcycle, especially an e motorcycle.
It seems top speed might be a way to do that, but there are e bikes that can go 40 mph so that further blurs that distinction.
For me having pedals (and pedal assist) and being able to lift it can thus carry it might be a way to distinguish the two.
But then there are cargo e-bikes, vs e trikes, and quads to further muddy the waters.
And is a bike (whatever kind) different than say larger vehicle such as a Humvee or is it a unique type of vehicle in that a Humvee (or the like) can carry bikes.
And a bike can be lain flat or be hid in bushes but not a Humvee but not so much a large motorcycle in that its too heavy to really do that well.
And a bike can easily be pushed into a building through a regular doorway, where a larger vehicle needs a garage size doorway and a truck need an even larger doorway like a hangar door.
If it has a motor of any kind and you can still pedal it, it is by definition a moped.
@@mpf1947 so driving e-bikes requires a license? Because mopeds do.
The funny thing to me about all of this is that the reason we call them “tanks” at all is because that was what was written on the crates they were originally shipped to France in, back when they were still a secret new weapon we didn’t want the Kaiser to know about. (At least that’s what my yr10 history teacher told me 30 years ago.)
OMFG dude. I am dieing over here laughing so hard at your "cause hazing is fun" woof
I don't know if this intended to be as funny as it is or not, but it's hilarious. The best military vehicles video on TH-cam. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As Spencer, the former JAG officer, said when he appeared on LegaEagle, "In the Armed Services, all things are possible. "
I think following the C&C logic is the best. Light car/bike, IFV, light, medium, heavy, super heavy, SPG/MLSR
Where and the time I'm from the CG M3 is a canon, and the CG M3 and the AT4 are the same weapon. With or without extras
When in doubt, refer to the tank alignment chart for classification.
I'm absolutely in the camp of "if it does the job" in terms of function, but in terms of design, I'd say a "tank" has armor and a gun that is more than just a fixed mounted version of an infantry version.
During the first few exercises, with the Brigade, I was to deploy with to Afghanistan.
Our 3 man Forward Observer team (FiSTer?), in an M113. Was used like just another vehicle with a M2 on top.
The platoon commanders, had no concept of our expertise.
And our officer, was quiet like a mouse, just following along.
Artillery you say? Well that's something the Company Commander arranges, according to my "extensive previous training, on Company Exercises".
They did all eventually learn, and we were put to good use during deployment.
Probably mostly, because of continually pressuring our Officer, to man up, follow them physically when ever possible, and presenting Fires solutions, to any problem, on any command meeting.
In the meen time, when ever possible, when he was doing that. We'd hone our paper work skills, in the vehicle, rather then taking a break.
Moral of the story, dunno, you tell me.
Honestly, the militaries and governments do whatever they want with names. The MG42 was a light machine gun, medium machine gun, and heavy machine gun. The classification only changed depending on what sort of stand it was put on, and you didn't even need adaptors to swap stands as far as I know.
That said, my favourite WW2 example for absurd naming is the M4, the M4, the M4, as well as the M4, and the M4. You know, the tank, the bayonet, the tank, the carbine, the halftrack, the truck, and probably quite a few others that were all in service at the exact same time.
Hey, it is officially "Medium Tank, M4" but any sane person would just call it the M4 because word salad. But then you have a dozen other M4s...
I can say the same about the M2. As the in the IFV, the light tank, the medium tank, the half track, the HMG, the tripod, the mine, the carbine, the mortar, the flamethrower, the compass and the target rocket.
It’s the colab we all wanted to see
Is it sad that I get a wave of excitement when I hear someone use the phrase “could not care less” instead of “could care less”? Sense was made, thank you
As someone who's never been promoted beyond corporal, the right answer is always gonna be whatever your immediate chain of command wants the piece of equipment/platform/rifle to self-identify as. (Even if other higher enlisted/commissioned ranks and written literature disagree with each other)
I really enjoy your videos keep this up bro
I’m sitting in my nerd room by myself, but I still did “suggestive eyebrows” when The Chieftan said “deep penetration tanks” 😂
the bookshelf in the chieftains background is making me crazy
It's rifled.
For her pleasure
Well the Carl Gustav *is* a rifle, as in it uses a gunpowder cartridge to fire a bullet. It's just a really big bullet, and some of the gas vents out the back to counter recoil.
reminds me of the same eternal conversation in the Marine side of things.
what was USS Alaska and Guam?
they was Battlecruiser size, had Battlecruiser armour, armament and speed, and was designed for a Battlecruiser role.
so therefor they are Large Cruisers!
(and the rest of the world disagrees... but name was mostly because the US Navy had not been operating any Battlecruisers before (Lexington-class was all converted to CV's before finished) and they had to give em a name that people in the marine would understand...)
Interesting video. One thing that wasn't covered enough is the role of logistics in defining the role of platforms. In the Army, there's a logistics document used by planners called a "horse-blanket". I don't remember the exact official name for this, but it wen into explicit detail about what the logistics package are for each platform. The equipment designated for each platform determines their role. For example, in a Stryker troop of a Cavalry regiment, equipment in a commander's variant is different from the equipment on a reconnaissance variant. The Commander's variant will have more radios and command and control equipment installed, where as the reconnaissance variant will have long range sights and more armament. There is a fire control variant used by the forward observer teams to provide long range fire support to the maneuver teams from long range artillery support assets. More fodder for the nerds.
And let's not forget, that different countries can classify things differently. Like Gaermany during WW2 classified tanks by the main gun caliber.
So from a German point of view PzKpfw V Panther is a medium tank, while T-34-85 is a heavy one, despite being 13 tons lighter than the Panther.
FN GPMG ia a LMG. On a tripod it's a MMG. A .5 HMG is a HMG. It's about effect on the target, about stability on target x effect.
Holy crap Batman, I think I made sense 😲
Would an FN Minimi change category if your belt runs out and you put in a box mag?
What about an RPK with a 70 rd drum vs one with a 30 rd box mag?
What about the M27 IAR? It's a select-fire 5.56 rifle based on the HK416 planed as partial replacement for the M249. Is than a LMG, SAW, AR, or DMR?
What about the L86 LSW, a heavy version of the SA80, which was planned as SAW replacement for the FN MAG GPMG, but it's accuracy lead it to be used as DMR.
Prior to the F88/EF88 Austeyr being the standard Australian Army Infantryman's Assault Rifle, when we used L1A1 SLR's (and a smattering of M16's here and there, usually for lead scouts, radio operators and officers), the LMG (Light Machine Gun) of a standard Australian Army Rifle Platoon was the MAG58 GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun).
(M60's as LMG also but that was more of a Vietnam War thing because of availability of US military stock/compatibility there over UK military stock. MAG58 was rarely used in Vietnam).
Since the introduction of the F89 Minimi into Australian Army Rifle Platoons (within the 3 Rifle Companies of an Infantry Battalion) as their standard LMG/Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) (and also in line doctrinaly with replacement of the L1A1 SLR with said F88/EF88 Austeyr that came into service here just prior to the F89), the MAG58 GPMG found itself elevated to the role of a Medium Machine Gun/Extended Range Machine Gun (ERMG) in the DFSW (Direct Fire Support Weapons) Platoon role.
DFSW Platoon intergrated into the Support Company within an Infantry Battalion.
With improved optics and use of tripods in the DFSW Platoon, the MAG58's capabilities are improved and extended greatly.
Harassing/supressing fire out to 3000m.
M2 Cal 50., Javelin FGM-148 ATGM, Carl Gustav 84mm Recol. Rifle Direct Fire Support Weapons and MK47 Automatic Grenade Launchers also found within the DFSW Platoon.
From there, an insane amount of death and destruction dealt out!
The DFSW Platoon punches well above their weight.
MAG58 GPMG is the king.
As far as MAG58 role changed, also it all makes sense within a Rifle Platoon as both L1A1 and MAG58/M60 used 7.62mm NATO and F88 and F89 used now both use 5.56mm NATO.
It made logistical life a bit easier.
🇦🇺💪
It is kind of fitting that tank as classification is confusing, as the name originally came from water tanks, as a method of obfuscating what the line item of military budget their development was being spent on.
This was fun 🤍
I prefer naming by form over naming by function, so I'd call the M10 booker a tank, but I'm just some guy.
Yep. Another fun vedio. Just adding to the algorithm.
In the British Army a "gun" is an artillery piece. The M240 (GPMG) is called a "gympy".
Certainly when I was in, both the L4 (7.62mm Bren) and L7 (FN MAG) were referred to as guns, and the blokes who operated them were the gun group.
Whats the thing at 9:48 ?
To Be fair the carl gustov. the recoilless rifle name thing goes back to world war 1. Where one was named the Davis gun which didn't shoot rockets or missiles. It actually shot lead balls and then some how over time it developed into things shooting shells.
A rifle is for fighting. A gun is for fun. My Drill Instructor told me so and on matters military, the Drill Instructor is always right.
Slap a long-range thermal camera on, and it’s probably going to be called a “Reconnaissance Light Armor” or something.
I hate the Yoda naming in the military. If they invented the jeep again it would probably be called "vehicle light support reconnaissance fast untracked" or vlsrfu
My first guess about the type nomenclature of the M10 is that it had/has a lot to do with egos and budget pockets inside the Army, like most of DC.
My favorite example of something being called something it's not would defiantly be amphibious assault ships being called aircraft carriers. Yes they both carry aircraft but they have very different roles.
Why are things named weirdly?
"We don't need anymore bazookas but we have all the funding for a rifle!" - Congress.
"Congress check out this new rifle that fires bazooka rounds!" - U.S. Army
/Funded!
a Light Tank and a Main Battle Tank have two different purposes. The way the US Army describes the M10 fits the role of a 'Light Tank' to a T. heh. Anyway in my opinion, the reason why the Army doesn't want to call it a Light Tank is so it can be approved by Congress. Congress is full of morons. Imagine having to explain to idiots while they are seeing Russian tanks burning that the Army needs not just one kind of tank, but two. Im already getting a headache imagining the frustration.
All in the name. Just reclassify the frigates to cruisers like in the 70s.
The M10 is a fire support vehicle or an assault gun. A light tank is made for maneuver warfare. The M1 Abrams is actually faster than the M10 Booker. The M10 is actually made for a specific role while tanks are flexible.
Also, the M2 Bradley is meant to carry people and offer fight with an infantry squad so it is an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). The M3 Bradley is an armoured reconnaissance vehicle. The US calls the M3 an Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV)...probably because the units that it's in are still classified as cavalry because of tradition and cavalry units were historically reconnaissance units.
In ww2 the USA alone had: The M3 Medium Tank, also had an M3 Sight, and its 75m gun...WAS ALSO Gun, Tank, M3. To even further confuse the issue... you had the Light Tank M3. The Half-track M3, the GREASE GUN M3. Etc...etc. it must have made requisitions very complicated.
Oh, just look up the absolute chaos that is the M2.
Basically common language and military language. Just like anything with a gun and tracks is a tank in common language (sometimes just one of the two) any soldier on a horse used to risk being called cavalry when that was a thing. Just how laguage works.
That’s a badass weapon.
Chieftain ftw
Lol bro the goose’s classification makes perfect sense…..
Here I thought you might point out that many recoiless rifles, including things like the 106mm M40, aren’t actually rifles at all. The 106mm recoiless round is fin stabilized only to increase HEAT effectiveness. Yet the Army classified it as a recoiless rifle.
The 6.8x51 being called an intermediate round is completely asinine.
It’s in between a pistol round and an artillery round. Intermediate.
@ianshaver8954 that got a cackle
Remember that the 7.62 is also much smaller than stuff like .48-55 Winchester, .450 Rigby, .45-70 Govt, .505 Gibbs, .577 Martiny-Henry, 8x55 mmR or 9.3x57 mm.
Most of the 6, 6.5 and 6.8 mm cartridges clearly fall into the intermediate range.
And let's not forget that the original idea for NATO was to use the FAL in .280, and even ideas in .276 and 6.25 were worked on. But certain US higher ups thought that was too weak and they need a cartridge with mroe stopping power, like .308 Winchester, only to then switch to 5.56 mm shortly after.
And that .280 cartrige wasn't so different from 6.8 mm SPC, so we're basically back to what people thought already in the 60s.
The IFV vs tank is so much easier in Finnish.
If its tracked and armoured, its a tank. (well, "armourwagon")
So, IFV with tracks is "assaultarmourwagon", and if its wheeled its a "assaultarmourvehicle".
The words in finnish are Panssarivaunu (PSV), Rynnäkköpanssarivaunu (RPSV) and Rynnäkköpanssariajoneuvo (RPSAJON).
Yeah, the words are long but it's not like we actually use those names other than in like a class or something. Either abbreviations or shorter nicknames.)
The answer: Common vocabulary to facilitate clear and concise communication in general and especially in combat
To make things extra fun when translating, the Germans call every armored vehicle a Panzer (whch often gets incorrectly translated as tank), derrived from Panzerung (armor). A tank is called a Kampfpanzer (translates to combat armored vehicle), an IFV is called a Schützenpanzer (infantryman's armored vehicle), an armored artillery vehicle that is capable of elevation above and below 45° a Panzerhaubitze and so on with different variants of armored vehicles.
Disclaimer: this is Wikipedia verified and augmented armchair knowledge, compiled here for your convenience.
A benefit of persnickety naming conventions is that they force people to ask, "why?" Unfortunately, not everyone is thereby inspired to dig deeper, but at least they have been given a reason to. The problem with saying, "It's a tracked gun-box. That's good enough." is that people are more likely to read an article by our highly objective journalist community that says, "Tracked Box M-10 Cheaper, Lighter and Newer Than the Abrams: So Why Are We Still Buying It?" and believe that we really should replace that M1 with M-10 -- 10 is bigger-er.
It's a recoilless rifle, but everyone just calls it the "84."
i think the main issue a lot of people have is with civilians calling any armed vehicle (heavily armed and armored or not) a "tank"
i've seen countless people calling MRAPs "tanks" (usually in reference to their use as police vehicles)
I think the best example of sticking to naming by role and units it gets assigned to, was in interwar France. They had decided that, no, the cavalry absolutely doesn't get tanks. But they could get other vehicles that can defend themselves. Such as an automitrailleuse. Literally a machinegun carrier. So they bought some of these machinegun carriers, which true to their name had a machinegun in the turret. Oh, and a coaxial anti-tank cannon to go with that machinegun. But they totally were a machinegun carrier. Said so right in the name :p
Reminds me of the russian aviation cruiser.
Because Turkey controls the Bosporus and can deny aircraft carriers passage.
So the USSR just decided if they put some guns and missiles on it, it isn't an aircraft carrier. It's a cruiser with a flight deck.
Or how Japan doesn't have any carriers.
Because those are offensive equipment, something the post WWII constitution forbids.
They have helicopter destroyers with a full length flight deck and are planned to operate F-35 in the near future. Totally not aircraft carriers.
Or how the german navy has 7200 ton frigates and 1800 ton corvettes, those are displacement typical for WWII cruisers and destroyers and the frigates outweigh even most modern day destroyers.
Another great video
0:17 Surrender, or not to surrender? That is the question! Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep, to surrender or to fight? To fight, and do not go gentle into that good fight, Old age should burn and rave at close of day, Rage, rage against the dying of those whilst you fight!
Yoo let's gooo
4:55 - What is that?
It looks like something from Command & Conquer
Man fuck the IFV vs tank debate. I'm looking for someone to meaningfully differentiate between an IFV and an APC
i'm pretty sure IFVs are actually able to fight stuff and not be a glorified taxi service
Ifv= acp with turret and a autocannon I reckon.
IFV = Actively fight along side infantry, usually has a larger 25-40mm cannon + coax at minimum
APC = Drop infantry off at dismount point, may provide some supporting fire, usually has a .50 cal or AGL at most, *usually* thinner armor.
That said at least in American doctrine you’ll see APCs more actively engaged than what Russia does with theirs. We have a tendency to still treat non-IFVs as IFVs.
@@Justin_Taylor and the MICV?
@@1337flite from my understanding MICV and IFV are interchangeable terms.
Russian Army equipment naming: Ok so this is made in [year] and its a tank so lets just call T-[last 2 digits of year]
US Army naming everything: *M1*
Remember though that a lot Soviet/Russian gear was/is referred to by us by NATO reporting names which is different to what the Sov/Russians call it. I'm not sure if that is true with tanks, but it is with most other Sov/Russian kit.
E.g. the SA-6 Gainful is/was the 2K12 in Sov/Russian service.
And I think the T-- thing is pretty unusual, most of the time it was just a serial number.
e.g. AT-1 Snapper, AT-2 Swatter, AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel or RPG-1, RPG-2, RPG-7, RPG-16 etc.
@@1337flite with infantry gear they just go with "vaguely what it does" + "who designed it" + "year it was introduced"
AK-47 just means "Kalashnikov's automatic(rifle) from 47
The AT4 is NOT a rocket launcher! 😂
From what i have understand:
Everything is a tank if you are brave enough but if you use bicycle with fireworks and armor attached to it as way to storm trenchens and fear the enemy you will technically be using a "tank" but bicycle is not designed for this purpose which mean you are the "creative" one and probably should have read what bicycle is used for in first place
For example ukrainians use this franch "tank" on big wheels to storm tranches and lets just say they should've listened more carefully
If I remember right the word rifle is the grooves in the barrel.
can we all agree that the mustache is a deadly weapon?
My main takeaway from this video is that I am now aware of two separate individuals of historical significance with the last name "Christmas.
I'm not sure what to do with this information.
Basically, the word tank refers to vessel for holding liquid and as tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun are not vessels for holding liquids none of them are technically tanks.
If a military calls something a tank to them, it is a tank but other people don't have to agree and personally I don't care what it is called I just want it close to me if I am in a combat zone.
Also you say "Talking about logistical trucks isn't the most exciting thing ever." I disagree! I think they're wicked cool! Imagine the cool SHTF vehicle or camper you could build out of one of those beasts! 🖤