Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic
“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE!
A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!!
What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase?
Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language?
Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: -
"any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:"
|
I agree that naming conventions can get pretty stupid. But, being familiar with how they work, in this case the "mobile" refers to the "firepower." The term "vehicle" defines the "mobile." You can have "mobile protected firepower" that is not a vehicle.
Also, there is a lot of grumbling going on in the Army right now about the MGS. It seems that they are not too happy with it. But, that could be translated a multitude of ways with even more outcomes.