4 ms·

have you considered that, perhaps, the average person has seen and driven many more cars (an everyday tool to billions of people) than warships? For what it's w

by c-cube 4y ago

have you considered that, perhaps, the average person has seen and driven many more cars (an everyday tool to billions of people) than warships? For what it's worth, even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles, not at random people who have other concerns.

logifail 4y ago
> even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles Never mind journalists, how about the German ambassador to the United States? Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  Hanlon’s Razor. Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. The war has made some to start to learn. Media is making jokes about them.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. Not just the Germans. Remember all those comments in the West (from people with apparently no military experience) calling for NATO to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine in early March? Then Biden and Stoltenberg explained what a no-fly zone actually is[0]. (Spoiler: it's not just a press release.) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenberg-no-fly-zone-warning/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenb...
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      I do remember calls for a no-fly zone by the excellent Ukrainian PR work. I don't remember any significant calls for it by others, possibly in the form of forwarding the request. I do assume that it was obvious to most that a no-fly zone would imply killing Russian aircraft. Planes get shot down at borders in times of peace, so that might not to be that much of problem. However, to establish a minimum of safety for NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone SAM sites on Russian soil would need to be disabled. Doing so would surely be considered crossing a border (literally an figuratively).
      - logifail 4y ago
        > I don't remember any significant calls for it by others At least one US Senator did[0][1] although judging by the Twitter responses it seems he lacks foreign policy experience (I'm putting that very mildly...) [0] https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2022/3/sen-rick-scott-biden-must-allow-plane-transfer-to-ukraine-or-enforce-a-no-fly-zone https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2022/3/sen-rick-scott-biden... [1] https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1504108727871623168 https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1504108727871623168
- brazzy 4y ago
  > Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection. Or, even simpler, a translation mistake - if that much, I'd rather call it an imprecision. The vehicle in question does in fact bear the word "Panzer" in its official German designation.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Oh, yes. Why should any journalist spend time & money on competent translation, when the typing "what does 'panzer' mean in English?" into some search engine gives them cool-sounding ideas for stories? Back in Realityville...the Germans officially called this little baby a "Panzerschiff" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-06,_Panzerschiff_%22Admiral_Graf_Spee%22.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-... - and what % of native speakers of English would call it a tank?
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      When concatenating nouns in the german language the base noun is at the end. That ship has tank-like properties, it is not a tank that swims like a ship.
      - bell-cot 4y ago
        Ships similar to that one were a regular item in navies long before the British decided to call their secret new armored & treaded battlefield thingies with guns "water carriers", "water tanks", or "tanks", in an attempt to avoid the attention of spies. The German term for gauntlets, in the sense of "hardened leather or metal glove, worn in hand-to-hand combat by knights" is "panzerhandschuhe". What if, in German, the root meaning of "panzer" is something far closer to "armored" than to "motor-driven, treaded, all-terrain direct fires combat vehicle"?
        andrewflnr 4y ago
        It does, that's literally all discussed in OP.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  There is quite some reason to assume, that when the German politics selected the "Gepard" as the first armored system which they would announce to be delivered to the Ukraine, they were playing exactly on this uncertainty. They could claim that they deliver "Tanks" to Ukraine, but chose an anti-air system. Which, ironically, from all German armored weapon system alledgedly is the most difficult to use (complex, 70ies style electronics). The Gepard is a Flugabwehrpanzer, and most people would just understand "Panzer". Of course that isn't even wrong as you consider that it shares the platform with the German MBT of that time, the Leopard 1. And for everything but a MBT it is probably more deadly due to the 1000+ rounds per minute it can shoot out of its 25mm machine guns.

by c-cube 4y ago

logifail 4y ago

> even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles Never mind journalists, how about the German ambassador to the United States? Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection.

someweirdperson 4y ago
Hanlon’s Razor. Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. The war has made some to start to learn. Media is making jokes about them.
- logifail 4y ago
  > Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. Not just the Germans. Remember all those comments in the West (from people with apparently no military experience) calling for NATO to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine in early March? Then Biden and Stoltenberg explained what a no-fly zone actually is[0]. (Spoiler: it's not just a press release.) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenberg-no-fly-zone-warning/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenb...
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    I do remember calls for a no-fly zone by the excellent Ukrainian PR work. I don't remember any significant calls for it by others, possibly in the form of forwarding the request. I do assume that it was obvious to most that a no-fly zone would imply killing Russian aircraft. Planes get shot down at borders in times of peace, so that might not to be that much of problem. However, to establish a minimum of safety for NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone SAM sites on Russian soil would need to be disabled. Doing so would surely be considered crossing a border (literally an figuratively).
    - logifail 4y ago
      > I don't remember any significant calls for it by others At least one US Senator did[0][1] although judging by the Twitter responses it seems he lacks foreign policy experience (I'm putting that very mildly...) [0] https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2022/3/sen-rick-scott-biden-must-allow-plane-transfer-to-ukraine-or-enforce-a-no-fly-zone https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2022/3/sen-rick-scott-biden... [1] https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1504108727871623168 https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1504108727871623168
brazzy 4y ago
> Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection. Or, even simpler, a translation mistake - if that much, I'd rather call it an imprecision. The vehicle in question does in fact bear the word "Panzer" in its official German designation.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Oh, yes. Why should any journalist spend time & money on competent translation, when the typing "what does 'panzer' mean in English?" into some search engine gives them cool-sounding ideas for stories? Back in Realityville...the Germans officially called this little baby a "Panzerschiff" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-06,_Panzerschiff_%22Admiral_Graf_Spee%22.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-... - and what % of native speakers of English would call it a tank?
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    When concatenating nouns in the german language the base noun is at the end. That ship has tank-like properties, it is not a tank that swims like a ship.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Ships similar to that one were a regular item in navies long before the British decided to call their secret new armored & treaded battlefield thingies with guns "water carriers", "water tanks", or "tanks", in an attempt to avoid the attention of spies. The German term for gauntlets, in the sense of "hardened leather or metal glove, worn in hand-to-hand combat by knights" is "panzerhandschuhe". What if, in German, the root meaning of "panzer" is something far closer to "armored" than to "motor-driven, treaded, all-terrain direct fires combat vehicle"?
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        It does, that's literally all discussed in OP.
_ph_ 4y ago
There is quite some reason to assume, that when the German politics selected the "Gepard" as the first armored system which they would announce to be delivered to the Ukraine, they were playing exactly on this uncertainty. They could claim that they deliver "Tanks" to Ukraine, but chose an anti-air system. Which, ironically, from all German armored weapon system alledgedly is the most difficult to use (complex, 70ies style electronics). The Gepard is a Flugabwehrpanzer, and most people would just understand "Panzer". Of course that isn't even wrong as you consider that it shares the platform with the German MBT of that time, the Leopard 1. And for everything but a MBT it is probably more deadly due to the 1000+ rounds per minute it can shoot out of its 25mm machine guns.