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)

Let me reiterate: defence industry contractors use the term in official press releases. English-speaking armies use the term. This can be sourced, your opinion on the subject cannot be sourced as coming from anyone but you. We are here to use the correct terms, not tell everyone terms used by authorities on the subject are wrong because we wish they weren't right.

I know this already, I don't even concede this point because I never argued against it. What you are not understanding is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCEPTABLE AND PREFERRED USAGE. What I'm saying is not an opinion, technically incorrect is technically incorrect, regardless of how it is used in common speech. Even the wikipedia article says that "rocket propelled grenade" is a backronym, the wikipedia article says that "RPG" has fallen into common usage, which is not something I have argued against. The only point I've tried to make is that RPG as a generic descriptor is technically incorrect. I never argued against it being used in normal conversation is unacceptable. I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't be used as a generic descriptor because it already is not used as a generic descriptor for all antitank weapons on this site. The only point I'm trying to make here is that the Type 69 is not officially type classified by Norinco or the PRC as "Norinco Type 69 RPG". That is the heart of my argument. Whatever phrase is used to describe antitank weapons in general is irrelevant to my argument. The Type 69 is not known as the Type 69 RPG in any official documentation from its manufacturers or users.

And you are wrong. It might once have been correct to argue as you're arguing, but it is now technically correct. It can be sourced to official literature as a correct term rather than just being confined to general use. It is used in technical literature to describe this class of weapons and their warheads. It doesn't matter where the term came from, what matters is how it is used now, and now it is a fully correct term. As I've said, it's as correct to label it Type 69 RPG as it is to call an M4 an M4 carbine or an M16 an M16 assault rifle, and nobody would remove the latter for being wrong.

You are completely ignoring everything I say. Just because something is acceptable does not mean it is technically correct. Just because it is present in technical manuals about other products does not make it technically correct. Find me something officially published by Norinco or the PRC or the PLA that says "Type 69 RPG" and you will be correct, but until then you have nothing to stand on. Without official recognition from a Chinese source, your argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "technically correct." Being used in the common vernacular does not make something technically correct. M16 assault rifle is acceptable, but it is not technically correct. M4 carbine is acceptable, but it is not technically correct. Both of those examples are more acceptable than "Type 69 RPG" because neither of them come from incorrect translations from a foreign language. One of your arguments is that we need to distinguish between the Type 69 antitank weapon, the Type 69 tank, and the Type 69 landmine, but that's already been refuted by both me and MT2008. So why are you arguing this? What are you hoping to accomplish here? What is your end goal and why do you care? --BurtReynoldsMoustache 19:29, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

I don't need a source from Norinco or the PRC to prove the general use of the term "RPG" to describe a class of weapons that includes the Type 69. You are not in a position to overrule the defence industry and the army on what "RPG" means, it really is that simple.

We are not talking about general usage we are talking about the Type 69 specifically. YES YOU DO NEED A SOURCE FROM NORINCO OR THE PRC IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER THE OFFICIAL NAME OF A NORINCO MANUFACTURED WEAPON ADOPTED BY THE PRC. My position is purely linguistic, and is a very safe assumption because I find it highly unlikely that the Chinese would use an incorrect English language backronym translation of a Russian language acronym to type classify their equipment. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 19:47, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

1. This wiki is in English. Of course the Chinese aren't going to use an English term for RPG to name their RPG, but that's irrelevant to the discussion; it's correct for us to refer to any RPG weapon as an RPG, and that includes the Type 69. You might as well argue that we can't say "MG42 machine gun" because there's no way any German would use the English term "machine gun."

Your argument is really falling apart here. You say it's correct to label any antitank weapon as RPG, yet nobody on this site refers to any antitank weapon besides RPG type weapons as RPG. This includes the LAW, the AT4, the Carl Gustaf, the Bazooka, the Panzerschrek, and many others. You say we shouldn't say "MG42" because Germans don't say "machine gun", yet MG in german does not mean "machine gun". MG in German stands for "maschinen gewehr", which means "machine rifle". "Machine rifle" is a German language analog to the English language "machine gun". There is no Chinese language analog to the Russian language "RPG" that adds up to an equivalent Chinese "RPG". --BurtReynoldsMoustache 20:07, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

Type 69 Pt. II

Right, so you're saying we should change every mention of "MG42 machine gun" to "MG42 machine rifle" since that's what the manufacturers called it?

Not at all. "Machine rifle" is a German language analog to the English "machine gun". "Rocket propelled grenade launcher" is a phrase that does not exist in the English language without the mistranslation from the original Russian. The English analog (not translation or transliteration) to the Russian RPG would be "shoulder-launched antitank weapon" or just "antitank weapon" or "rocket launcher".

--BurtReynoldsMoustache 20:52, 14 April 2011 (CDT) I've heard this argument over calling the King Tiger a King Tiger (it should be "Bengal Tiger"), and the same applies here; it might once have been wrong, but is now so commonly used by authoritive sources that those arguing it is wrong are the ones who are incorrect.

I had no idea what this is so I looked it up. It's a tank, and is therefore outside the scope of IMFDB. It is irrelevant to the argument. You're really stretching here.

As far as I can see, nobody has yet agreed with you that RPG is not a correct term to use to describe a class of weapons that includes the Type 69. It might be superfluous to call it "Type 69 RPG" all the time, but that does not fit your idea that it is wrong; nobody has agreed on that point.

M4 Carbine is superfluous. M16 Rifle is superfluous. Type 69 RPG is superfluous AND technically incorrect. I really think you do not understand the meaning of "technically correct." I've already agreed that RPG is in common usage, I've never argued against that. What I'm trying to get across to you is that common usage does not equate to being technically correct. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 20:38, 14 April 2011 (CDT)

It doesn't matter where the term comes from; again, like "King Tiger" as a name for the Tiger II, it's a mistranslation which has become accepted as a technically correct name in authoritive, published literature; I bought that up because it is another example of such a thing happening.

Outside the scope of IMFDB, therefore irrelevant. Drop it. If an admin decides this is a valid point and that I should refute it then I will. Until then, it's invalid.

Common usage in technical description and by the military does in fact make a term correct; it would only be wrong if it was commonly used by laymen but not used by people working in the relevant field (here, the military and the defence industry), and this is clearly not the case in the slightest.

This is not true at all. If you genuinely believe this then you have absolutely no idea what the phrase "technically correct" means. Common usage in technial descriptions does not make something technically correct. You are confusing two different definitions of the word "technical". If you can refute my earlier "blue/indigo" argument, then we can progress. Until you do that, we're stuck going in circles. --BurtReynoldsMoustache 20:52, 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)