Talk:Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle

nicknames need sources
I've tagged several nicknames listed which do not appear in the cited source. Can anyone source "84" (Canadian), "Gustaf"(American), "Carl Johnson" (American), or "Charlie Gusto" (Australian)? Another possible nickname (not currently in the article) needing a source is "Boostav" (American). Meters (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, I know one of the links from the April 2015 thread above lists "84", but I don't know that the Gizmag (now New Atlas) site can be considered a reliable source, and it appears that the 2009 article may have used the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. Meters (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Gutsache" could also simply mean "gute Sache", like "good stuff" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.148.122 (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the M4 and the E1 the same weapon?
Over almost 50-years, the weapon has gone through improved variants: M1, M2 and M3, with improved materials, getting lighter each time.

However, Saab has recently produced a major improvement, the M4. Now from reading the sub-section under the M4, it sounds like the US Military took the M4 and studied it, then produced a similar weapon, which they call the M3-E1. But this leaves a lot of uncertainty.

The pictures of the M4 and the E1 are not similar. There are other comments, perhaps unrelated, which imply that additional ammunition or extra electronic features are on the E1 vs. the M4. Also, the listed weights saved are different (although the M4 seems to be referencing the M3, while the base of comparison for the E1 is not mentioned, so it is not clear if it is 6 lb lighter than the M3, or the M1).

Finally, I got here by looking at the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB). This is a newly formed brigade that trains closely with the USMC and is modeled after it. Japan frequently uses US equipment, usually produced under license. Under the list of the brigade's equipment they mention the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, i.e. this page here. Under the List of modern equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force it is mentioned as the "Howa 84RR", in the regular Infantry Weapons section. These are the M2 and M3 versions.

So there are three points to be made:

1) What are the differences between the Saab M4 and the US M3-E1?

2) Which version is the Japan ARDB buying (with or without a production license for Howa Industries)?

3) After we sort things out here, the "List of modern equipment of the Japan GSDF" needs to be updated if the ARDB is buying an M4 or E1 version. This special purchase for the ARDB can be listed separately under the "Special Forces" section. And under the WIKI "ARDB (Japan)" page, it would help to mention after the "Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle" if it is the M4 or the E1 version, perhaps with a direct link to not only the page, but also that section on the page for the specific weapon.

Thanks,

James 103.125.93.100 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Picture above Sweden in list of operators.
Is the guy on the pic really Swedish? His uniform is not Swedish and he is not dressed in Swedish armed forces gear. VicStr (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Those are indeed Swedish soldiers (and an American journal filmer) in Swedish uniforms, though it's the variant specifically used in tropical service in the 1960's as they were participating in the UN mission in Congo. BP OMowe (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Nordic Biker War
I have an real issue with the sources provided. Beside the fact that they aren't local newspapers and thus unlikely to have their own journalists there and thus relegated to summarie other newspapers, the information in them are quite contraditionary. The weapon used is in the very same articles described as an antitank missile (which the Danish wikipedia actually links to), a shoulder launched antitank rocket (suggesting the AT4 or the like) and a Carl Gustaf... not mention the creative Carl Gustav anti-tank rocket which makes no sense at all as by the time the AT4 was developed, Carl Gustaf Gevärsfaktori had been merged into Förenade Fabrksverken FFV while the recoilless rifle does not shoot rockets. Does anyone know a more authorative source on this? BP OMowe (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its common knowledge for me that it was a Carl Gustaf M3 in the attack, but many newspapers got their weapon knowledge from hollywood so yes its not the greatest source. I will see if i can find a better source in a bit.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that the AT4 is not a rocket, its also a recoilless system like the Carl Gustaf RR, just not reloadable.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate it! I know how the AT 4 works, but that (and the Miniman) are the closest thing to the M72 LAW that the journalist seemed to describe. BP OMowe (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So i cannot find anything on what weapon was used in the Copenhagen attacks. No photos can be found, not the police report. I will remove the war from the article as of now.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

RCL/MRWS
Dispelling myths isn't really what the purpose of an infobox is, it is to simply state the facts of the matter. Secondary sources such as Janes are able to corroborate the claim that the Carl Gustav is a recoilless rifle, whereas searching the term "multi-role weapon system" only produces Saab's website, and news articles about the Gustav, which parrot the term, but do nothing to explain what it is or how it differs from a standard RCL, leading me to believe it is nothing more than promotional jargon. Loafiewa (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to action. Recoiless is not a type, it is an action.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A recoilless rifle is absolutely a type of weapon, with an established definition. I'm yet to see any evidence that "multi-role weapon system" is an actual type of weapon with an actual definition, rather than an invention by Saab's marketing department. Loafiewa (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot "man-portable" multi-role weapon system. I can site several Swedish sources starting from 1943. A recoilless rifle is a type of weapon in the same manner as a rocket launcher. It can be vehicle mounted, field mounted, man-portable, etc, etc. It can be a anti-personell weapon, a anti-tank weapon, a flare launcher, etc, etc. Recoiless rifle is an umbrella term which says nothing about the actual weapon role and configuration. Its the same thing as calling the AK-47 an automatic firearm or machine carbine instead of assault rifle.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have to be in English as this concerns usage of the term in English, but if you can cite a source that provides evidence of use + some definition/explanation of the term, then I'd consider that sufficient. Loafiewa (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i got hammered with stuff to do. I cant bother with English sources as they differ from country to country and even between military branches. The US marines even class the M3 as a rocket launcher (no wonder they have reputation of smoothbrains). Ive done some alterations to flesh out the type, let's hope it suffice.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be OR. None of the added sources refer to it as an infantry support gun. Loafiewa (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And the sky is blue. ┻━┻ ︵╰(°□°╰) Blockhaj (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but WP:NOR is a core content policy. If you're going to make a claim in an article, then you have to cite a source that actually corroborates that claim. Loafiewa (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)