Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
I'm less concerned with what the current name of such as thing is as what it does on the battlefield. A favorite author of mine once pointed out that anyone can call a light truck with an ATGM a tank destroyer, but whether it fits the general specifications of the terminology is another matter. I imagine the Ridgway as combining anti-armor fire and direct fires in support of troops. Is "gun system" a catch-all for these functions?
|
I hesitate to say "gun system" is a catch all, but given recent history I think there is a natural draw toward the term. Although I can't confirm that.
On a side note: none of these vehicles were intended to perform anti-tank functions, despite a capability to do so.
Naming a vehicle is a lot more detailed than most people think. Normally when people describe what a particular vehicle should do they rattle off a couple of capabilities as you did above with anti-armor and direct fire. I did, and still do on occasion, the same thing. then follow that up with something like "sounds like an assault gun/MBT/light tank."
To use the AGS as an example, there were 96 characteristics that the vehicle had to satisfy. The name had to be reflective of all those nuances. Technically, the “AGS” program began in 1976 with the objective of developing a replacement for the Sheridan. The characteristics changed in both number and style a number of times, and with it came a name change. Ultimately, the name AGS was selected as holistically representative of those characteristics. The CCV-L was chosen as the closest physical manifestation of those 96, but only became the AGS after development changed the vehicle to fit all 96.