User talk:Evil Tim

And I think we'll start this again with a clean slate.

Type 69

(also, you shouldn't remove the note that the calibre is 40mm).

I only deleted caliber text where it improperly listed it as 70mm. 70mm is the warhead diameter of the PG-7 antitank grenade round, which is only one of many different sized warheads available. They all have the same cartridge caliber of 40mm, so that is the only proper caliber to list. If I deleted anything that said "40mm" then I did it accidentally.

rocket propelled grenade launcher

This phrase is not used on this site. Acceptable terms include "antitank grenade launcher", "antitank rocket launcher", or "antitank weapon". "Rocket propelled grenade" is what is called a backronym; an incorrect interpretation of a pre-existing acronym. RPG is an acronym for the Russian phrase "Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot" which translates into English as "hand-held antitank grenade launcher". It was later incorrectly translated to English as "rocket propelled grenade", a phrase which itself is incorrect even as a descriptor. The RPG-7 fires grenade rounds that are initially propelled by a gunpowder charge, similar to a recoilless rifle. The rocket motor is a secondary propulsion system that engages after the round is already in flight. Additionaly, saying "RPG launcher" is redundant. The G stands for "granatomyot", a single word for "grenade launcher". Saying "RPG launcher" is akin to saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine".

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).

Actually it is incorrect because of the Russian language origins of RPG. "Type 69 RPG" would be linguistically similar to "Type 56 AK", "Type 54 TT", and "Type 79 SVD". All of those acronyms mean something specific in Russian and are particular nomenclatures to Russian/Soviet manufactured models. The acronym is meaningless in the Chinese languages and would not be used to name their equipment. RPG is not a general descriptor like "rifle" or "carbine" or "antitank grenade launcher", it's a specific naming scheme used by the Soviet/Russian military. You are correct that just "Type 69", on its own, is incorrect, but only in that it is incomplete and nonspecific. Within the context of this site, it is acceptable because we don't ID tanks and landmines. The distinction is not necessary. "Type 69 RPG" is just plain incorrect.

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.

Nothing about this paragraph is correct. I've already explained how RPG is not a generic descriptor. There is no "usual western acronym", it's just an incorrect interpretation of a Russian language acronym. Yes people assume its meaning, no that does not make it correct. Maybe it's acceptable in casual conversation, but it is not preferred, and is certainly not acceptable in a piece of work striving for technical accuracy, such as this site. And it is most certainly not acceptable for the projectiles, which are not even type classified as "RPG". They are classified as "PG", and that's only in Russian. The Chinese have an entirely different naming system.

--BurtReynoldsMoustache 20:17, 13 April 2011 (CDT)

Hmmm, hold on a second, Burt...while I can agree that calling it the "Type 69 RPG" may be redundant, I am not sure I agree with you that we should disregard the Western meaning of RPG (even if it is an incorrect translation of the Russian acronym). I think Tim has a point on that, and it wasn't clear to me from the forum topic what you were on about. Broadly speaking, "RPG" has become a generic term for rocket-propelled grenade launchers, even though technically, the term "RPG" refers to munitions rather than launchers. You do know that there is a Wikipedia entry for rocket-propelled grenade, right, Burt? -MT2008 23:10, 13 April 2011 (CDT)

The wikipedia article is basically a rewrite of this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_missile_weapon They are basically the same article and should be merged. There's no reason for there to be two separate articles or for the RPG article to take precedence over the SLMW article. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 01:39, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

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.

This is not true at all. "RPG" is only ever used to describe RPG-7 variants. I've never heard anyone use "RPG" in reference to a LAW or AT4 or Carl Gustaf launcher or Bazooka. It just doesn't happen. It is not a generic term for antitank weapons. Additionaly, from a technical perspective, the phrase "rocket propelled grenade launcher" would be better applied to all antitank weapons EXCEPT RPG type weapons (and Carl Gustaf launchers). RPG type weapons function more like smoothbore recoilless rifles. Though most rounds for the RPG-7 are rocket assisted once in flight, there are antipersonnel rounds that are in no way rocket assisted. Plain and simple the RPG-7 is technically not even a rocket launcher. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 01:39, 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: "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.

Yes I'm saying they're wrong. They are technically incorrect. Yes it has fallen into the common vernacular, but this site exists to be technically correct. Furthermore, we're not even talking about generic usage, here. We're talking about the specific nomenclature of the Type 69. Regardless of the common usage of the phrase "RPG" as a generic descriptor, it's still not correct to label the Type 69 as the "Type 69 RPG". --BurtReynoldsMoustache 03:17, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

No, it's not even technically incorrect when technical descriptions use it.

Yes it is. You're using two different definitions of technical/technically here. You can have technically incorrect information in a technical description. An example would be using "blue" to describe something that is indigo; it's technically incorrect, but because of the way the word is used in the common vernacular it still gets the point across.

BAE are hardly going to be wrong about what term they choose to use for the weapon.

They're using it in marketing literature. Using common vernacular in marketing literature is acceptable. Even though they are wrong, it still gets the point across and people know what they are talking about.

This is no longer something incorrect but widely used, it is something that has become correct and is used as a proper name.

Just because something is widely used does not mean it becomes correct. You are arguing from the position that it's ok to be wrong as if everyone is wrong. And no it's not a proper name. You're not even arguing for it to be used as a proper name, you're arguing for it to be used as a generic descriptor. We're talking about the Type 69, and it's proper name is not "Type 69 RPG".

You are not in a position to overrule people who manufacture and operate weapons professionally on what they are correctly called.

I am in a position to overrule them here on this site. They can call things whatever they want in their promotional literature and technical manuals, it's their prerogative. If they care enough about it to argue, they're free to come here and air any complaints they may have.

It's a Type 69, class RPG

Now you're just making this up. Nobody in the history of anything has referred to any antitank weapon as Type 69 Class RPG or M72 LAW Class RPG.

so it is as correct to call it that as it is to call an M4 an "M4 carbine" in a caption.

No it's not. Carbine has always been a generic descriptor. RPG is a generic descriptor because of a mistake. Also, we shouldn't use "M4 carbine" to label M4's on this site anyway. "Colt M4" or "Colt M4A1" are sufficient enough. Tacking on "carbine" afterwards is superfluous and unnecessary. Not as egregious as "Type 69 RPG", just not needed.

We're here to use terms correctly, not alter them to how you wish they were used.

Yes we are here to use terms correctly. What you are not understanding is the difference between acceptable usage and preferred usage. In casual conversation it's acceptable to refer to rocket launchers as RPG's, it's technically wrong, but it gets the point across so people know what you're talking about. IMFDB, however, is not casual conversation. Also none of this really matters because what we're talking about is the official technical name of the Type 69. Regardless of how one uses the phrase "RPG", the official name for the Norinco Type 69 is not "Type 69 RPG". Tacking on "RPG" as a generic descriptor is redundant and superfluous. It's incorrect, it's unnecessary, there is no reason to do it. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 14:19, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

Type 69 response

I've asked BRM to refrain from making any more changes until this is decided upon. --Ben41 17:05, 14 April 2011 (CDT)