Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank", or the M1 Abrams.

In Germany, "tank" is translated to "Panzer", which roughly means armored vehicles. So "Flugabwehrkanonepanzer" (aka: Flakpanzer) is a Panzer.

But a German-flakpanzer is NOT a USA-"tank".

----------

I think a lot of the confusion is the difference in languages. Panzer =/= tank, its just the closest word between the two languages, so we kinda sorta equate them.

USA's M2 Bradley is "not a tank", but probably would be classified as a German Panzer.

--------

The "proper name" is "Main Battle Tank", which does refer to a very specific kind of vehicle.

-------

This is reminding me very much of the "cube rule" for sandwiches. A "hot-dog" isn't a "sandwich", its a "taco" (hot-dogs have the starch covering 3x sides, with the "top" side open).

Other "tacos" include hot-dogs, subs, and slice-of-pies (pies are covered on 3 sides after all)

View on HN

“Panzer” in a very general protective sense translates to “Armour”. Brustpanzer -> Chest armour. Even a turtle’s shell is a Panzer. Typically a hard enclosure protecting the main body of a thing. But not its extremities. A “helmet” is a “Helm”. Though any element can be “gepanzert”, or “armoured”.

It is important to note that Panzer mostly refers to protection from violence. A civilian car is never “gepanzert”, neither is a padded skateboarder. Unless you’re mocking something. A Chelsea tractor is an Hausfrauenpanzer. One exception I can think of is the Rückenpanzer, or spine protector.

In a contemporary military context, a Panzer is any armoured vehicle. The definition is indeed looser than in English. The equivalent of tank (or main battle tank, MBT) is Kampfpanzer. Fighting tank.

An IFV like the M2 is a Schützenpanzer. Shooter/gunner/rifleman’s tank.

But when using Panzer to describe a specific vehicle, as opposed to a general category, I too would expect it to refer to an MBT. But I could be wrong here.

> A civilian car is never “gepanzert”

There most definitely are civilian cars which count as "gepanzert": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderschutzfahrzeug - still falling under your definition of "protection from violence".

Also more commonly/colloquially called “Panzerlimousine” — armoured limousine.

Great response.

Panzer on its own translates to (an) "armoured" (thing).

I love the Chelsea tractor -> "Hausfrauenpanzer" allusion. The German might be translated as "The wife's tank" or "The missus' tank" or "Me bird's tank".

The English word tank is the outlier. It's a code word for the initial concept that has stuck and unfortunately ended up as the canonical name for the thing. The word tank in English really used to mean a vessel eg a water tank.

I lived in West Germany in the 1970s/80s ...

At the risk of getting shredded here for working in defense contracts on unmanned vehicles, I’m one of software engineers working on an unmanned tank. [0] If someone asks what I do my initial response was “recently I’ve been writing software for unmanned tanks” which was met with a lot of blank stares. Now I say something like “I work on tracked vehicles like what you would call a WWII tank” and that seems to go over better.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripsaw_(vehicle)

I imagine calling them "killer robots" is frowned upon in your industry.

Sure isn’t. Turns out most of them aren’t meant to fire artillery.

Edit: it’s also 100x more interesting than making a website or an app and arguing about which fotm framework to use.

> Edit: it’s also 100x more interesting than making a website or an app and arguing about which fotm framework to use.

I am not a pacifist. There are some people doing bad things, that need to be stopped. But there being many npm packages is one of the stupidest possible explanations for working on it.

Finding my work more interesting than nmp install is stupid?

Edit: I’m really kind of blown right now. You’ve decided my job interest is stupid. I’ve loved remote controlled cars since I was 4, I’m now in my late 30s. I get to program big remote controlled vehicles. I love it. But I guess that isn’t ok. ={{

I have faith in your ability to understand that I have not decided that your job interest is per se stupid, but that choosing to build weapons, because of a short-lived frontend landscape sounds exceptionally stupid.

Unmanned tank warfare sounds kinda humane actually. Instead of killing each other, tank crew members being cooked alive, etc, we just let the unmanned tanks duke it out kinda like a really expensive robotics competition. Of course reality doesn't really work like this but...

For the most part conventional armies don’t really fight one another that often anymore - it’s more common to have asymmetric warfare like western/russian involvement in the Middle East. These “tanks” will probably not target other “tanks”.

The early Ripsaw really does look like the first WWI tanks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_...

Right. People might use the word "Panzer" and have MBTs in their mind. Because that is the most famous kind of armored vehicle. But as the word "Panzer" is used for any kind of armor, it is pretty obvious, that it doesn't describe an exact vehicle type and all precise terms are compound words containing Panzer, like Kampfpanzer (MBT), Flugabwehrpanzer (anti air tank), Schützenpanzer (APAC). There is even the category of the Radpanzer, which means wheeled tank. But my favorite by far is the Brückenlegepanzer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EdJcObHIPo which can lay a 20m bridge in 5 minutes without any support and also pick it up again.

And there is overlap, like the TPz Fuchs[1]: It's a Transportpanzer (=> TPz), because it can transport troops, but also a Radpanzer, because it has wheels.

On the other hand, the MTW M113[2] was not called Schützenpanzer (APAC) in the german army, but Mannschaftstransportwagen (=> MTW), lit. squad transport vehicle. No hint in there that it's a armoured, tracked vehicle. However, the swiss called them Schützenpanzer.

German in the military is quite complicated :D

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPz_Fuchs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier

And of course, the new Schützenpanzer Puma, while still being an APAC, has grown quite an impressive cannon. With its 35mm gun, it probably could hold itself well against the older russian MBTs, against everything else anyway.

A taco is mutually exclusive from a sandwich, because it’s made from folded piece of bread, rather than sliced / partially sliced which is what defines a sandwich.

Hot dogs and subs are sandwiches for this reason, as are burgers.

Also, “taco” is a term for a specific kind of folded bread dish - even quesadillas aren’t considered tacos.

A pie is not a sandwich, taco, or quesadilla. It’s a pie.

A pie surrounded by crust is a ravioli.

> A pie surrounded by crust is a ravioli.

Dumpling

Empanada

Screw all of you now I'm hungry and there's no empanada places around.

How long do I need to boil it?

So if I took a single slice of bread, and I put Welch’s grape jelly on half of one side, then I put Peter Pan crunchy peanut butter on the other half of the same side (rectangular halves, not triangular halves), and then I carefully folded the slice of bread over in half along the line where the jelly meets the peanut butter, then what do I have?

I rest my case.

A pseudo sandwich

> In the USA, a “tank” refers to a “main battle tank”, or the M1 Abrams.

That’s not true, though the only tanks in the current inventory in the US are MBTs. The term “tank” in the USA does encompass light tanks, like the (retired) M551 Sheridan, (canceled just before operational) M8 Buford, and the (in development) as-yet-undesignated product of the Mobile Protected Firepower project, not just MBTs.

Since the word "tank" was just a cover word used by the Brits, IMHO the Germans should have continued to use "Traktor" for theirs ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leichttraktor

This definition of the main battle tank is very much dependent on the current military doctrine of the host country. Each army is making its own trade offs of vehicle weight/armor vs speed vs caliber of the gun.

- In the US an MBT is very heavy and has a very long gun, in order destroy tanks that are very var away.

- In Russia an MBT is much lighter, so as not to get stuck in the mud.

- In Israel an MBT has a shorter gun and has more armor, because it really is mostly used for infantry support - but it also has to be able to stand against enemy tanks.

The US/NATO equivalent term for Panzer is an AFV which encompasses all armored fighting vehicles.

Panzer is just a better name than AFV.

I used to think Panzer was German for "Panther" :-)

> In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank",

Lol, not sure if you’re trolling here, but that’s a recursive definition.

So "tank" is just a weasel word that poorly translates between cultures and languages. But "Main Battle Tank" translates correctly.

A German Flakpanzer could be called a "German Panzer", and you can translate that to mean "German Tank" in one sense, but a Flakpanzer is NOT what the USA would ever call a tank.

But if we start with the term "Main Battle Tank", or "MBT" instead, then no, the Flakpanzer is NOT a MBT. The German MBT is the Leopard 2.

------

So MBT is the more technical and proper term.

My reading was this should be read as "the colloquial term X is typically used to designate objects that fall in military jargon in the class Y".

That is: GP translates from colloquial to jargon. Since these are different, in particular, semantics of words change, this definition is not recursive.

He talks specifically about the etymology of the word Panzer, including its colloquial usage, in the linked article.

Tacos are definitely sandwiches. Or as I usually say it, sandwiches are tacos.

Cube-rule is pretty funny.

https://cuberule.com/

Specifically this picture: https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg

Of course, this rule is absurd, since it classifies hotdogs, pie, and subs as a "taco". I think the overall point remains, that no matter how you wish to "classify" things, you can always find a unique counter-example that messes up your classifications.

I never got that as the overall point because there are definitely classification systems (especially in math) that don't have counter-examples.

Hotdogs and tacos are the same, topologically speaking. We derive additional meaning between the two words because they're not the same due to bread and filling used, but topology doesn't care about that. It's entertaining because it's food and everyone has experience with that, but there's some serious math once you look into it!

I guess you could classify me as a structural purist - ingredient rebel on the sandwich alignment chart. I'm guessing you're a structural neutral - ingredient purist person.

One thing ignored is the ingredients inside - a “taco” with one huge piece of chicken or steak would seem more like some other type of food.

> One thing ignored is the ingredients inside - a “taco” with one huge piece of chicken or steak would seem more like some other type of food.

A taco with one huge piece of fish inside is typically called a “fish taco”. One with a whole frankfurter inside is, apparently, a “taco de salchicha”.

So I’m not sure that your theory holds up.

> *A taco…with a whole frankfurter inside is, apparently, a “taco de salchicha”.

This brings back a bittersweet memory.

A couple of months ago I was looking through the fridge to fix something for dinner. I had neglected my shopping for a few days, but I did find some hot dogs, whole wheat tortillas, fresh sauerkraut, and crunchy whole grain Dijon mustard.

So we made hot dog tacos!

I pan-fried the hotdogs in a bit of olive oil, and warmed the tortillas one at a time in a dry pan. As each tortilla was ready, we spread the mustard on it, added a hot dog and plenty of sauerkraut, and rolled it up.

Maybe not authentic tacos de salchicha, but they were good!

Why is the memory bittersweet?

In a connection almost worthy of James Burke, we made the hot dog tacos on February 24, the day the Russian tanks started rolling into Ukraine.

>definitely classification systems (especially in math) that don't have counter-examples

Come on now, I want to get in an argument over the sorites paradox.

My main issue with the rule is that it calls pumpkin pie bent toast, when it is obviously a missing category of type (2) where instead of being disjoint like the sandwich, the 2 pieces of starch are connected at an edge. Likewise there should probably be a category of type (3) where all pieces of starch are joined at a corner and a category of type (4) where it’s like a type (5) but with one of the sides removed. I believe with those three additions all rotationally-unique cube configurations would be accounted for by the rule.

Burgers are sandwiches. Many things are sandwiches. Earth is a sandwich since most of the time two slices of bread touch the ground at pretty-much-opposite sides[citation needed]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com