I don’t understand that this English text.
Soldier said he is thinking of having his crew switch from Uzi submachine guns to Tommy guns.
I’m stuck with “crew” …what does “crew” mean here ? I know crew in plane , crew in ships. …they are just staff of the plane or ships.
But what does “crew” in Army ? is it a another soldier who is helping the this Soldier ?
I’m confused with the word “Crew” here . Could you please explain what is the meaning of “crew” here.
Tanks have crews.
They used to carry submachine guns, too. Both the Israeli and West German Armored Corps used to equip their troops with Uzis.
“Crew” can be used as a slithly slangy term for “team”.
What’s the context of this anyway?
The 7th definition of crew from dictionary.com is:
It also gives the origin of the word as:
It isn’t uncommon for ‘crew’ to be used as a synonym for gang or group.
Those are very much helpful. thanks for the time
But a Tommy gun is a submachine gun, and one that is fairly obsolete, the term generally refers to the Thompson Submachine gun.
It came out in 1921. Still very cool, but hardly a military weapon any more.
The Uzi came out in 1948, and weighs about half a Thompson. It has been replaced (or is being replaced) by the Tavor aka TAR-21. Perhaps that’s the firearm he was referring to.
I’m not interested in the semantic debate, I’ll just address the question.
The Uzi submachine gun (a submachine gun fires a pistol round, by definition) fires a 9mm Luger/Parabellum round. A Thompson fires a .45 ACP round. Therefore, the Thompson fires a much larger, albeit slower, round. For certain schools of thought a larger round is more effective than a smaller round in that the larger round causes more damage to a human being.
I’m not going to do the caliber war thing, because that only ends in tears. I will simply say that shot placement is paramount, and everything else is details. I would be perfectly content with either weapon if I were in combat.
True, but you can get a Uzi in a .45 if you really wanted to. The Thompson- .45 vs 9mm or no- is simply obsolete as a military weapon. Too heavy, too expensive, too fiddly, and not very accurate. Mind you, my Dad loved it in New Guinea, but that was heavy jungle and WWII.
The Tavor is chambered for the 5.56x45mm NATO, which is a rifle calibre, nearly 4x the energy of the .45, which is a short range calibre. True, reams of paper and barrels of hampster sweat have been used up in the debate of 9mm vs .45, but no sane person would prefer the .45 vs the 5.56x45mm NATO in a military sitrep, esp in the desert. Of course, the other advantage of the 9mm is that the IDF must have gazillion rounds of it, whereas they’d have to special order .45 acp. I am absolutely certain that the IDF is not going back to the .45 Thompson smg.
Not to mention it is no longer even being manufactered. (as such, they still make a semi-auto collector version with a longer barrel)
Actually, the Israeli army hasn’t used the Uzi as a front-line combat weapon since the early 1970’s, except by a special forces under certain conditions. It wasn’t replaced by the Tavor - the Tavor is replacing the M-4, which replaced other M-16 variants, which replaced the Galil, whcih replaced the FN-FAL. The Uzi, and the concept of the submachine gun as an infantry weqpon, was phased out of service a long time ago.
The IDF never used Thompsons. They went straight from homemade Stens to Uzis.
In 1948, they were using anything that shot, including 8mm Mausers.
Per wiki “Micro-Tavor Submachine Gun Variant of the Tavor Assault Rifle, replacing the Uzi”, note that this version is available in 9mm.
Referred to, euphamistically, as “Czech Rifles”. Sometimes they even remembered to file the swastikas off.
The only Uzis still in use today are the Mini- and Micro- variants, which are carried by special forces and by generals. I doubt they’ll be replaced anytime soon - the Tavor just isn’t as compact.
Semi thread hijack: Any idea why the Israelis came up with the Desert eagle? Can’t have been to have an Israeli weapon in movies and video games.
Also, I thought the reason the ISraelis used M-16s and M4s was that credits to buy them were given by the US. Was that the reason? Why the switch to the Tavor?
I’m pretty sure it was developed with the American civilian market in mind. I’ve certainly never seen an Israeli carry one.
The switch to the M16 and M4 was mainly because they were deemed better than the Galil - lkighter na dmore accurate, and in the case of the M4, capable of using advanced optics and other gadgets.
The Tavor was developed on spec in the 1990’s - there was no real request for a new rifle. After a decade of tweaks, tests and decisions, the army decided to adapt it for its infantry force only (in the mean time, at least), because it was perceived as being slightly better than the M4, and because they felt that at least the infantry should carry an indigenous weapon, as a matter of national pride. After all, the Americans, Brits, French, Germans, Russians and others all have their own guns - why shouldn’t we?
The Desert Eagle was not designed by an Israeli or any entity in Israel. It was designed by Magnum Research, an American firm, who contracted Israeli Military Industries to manufacture the weapon for them.
The Israelis maintain their own armaments industry because their very survival might depend on not having their main source of weapons cut off. They even produce indigenous fighter planes and tanks.
In general, the submachine gun or “machine pistol” has it’s place but in recent years has lost ground to carbine versions of 5.56 rifles and personal defense weapons, due to the perceived need for higher velocity rounds both to penetrate body armor and increase range and accuracy.
The question was about the word “crew”. You didn’t answer that at all. You turned a linguistic thread into a gun thread, good job. Score one for the NRA.
Actually, the title of the thread did that.
But at least we can all agree that they’re both assault weapons, right? Right?
The OP’s specific question was answered in the first few posts, the OP even came back as early as post #5 to thank the SDMDers who had helped him. Thus we went on to the other oddity in the quote.
yawn
My post referred back to the one immediately preceding it. What you are accusing me of was already in progress.
If I answer that I will turn this into a gun thread, so I’ll abstain unless someone else wants to take this thread into the abyss. It won’t be me, not this time.