http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.
html
Common Mistakes in Military Writing
You may be working on a TV or movie script
or creating a video game. You may be writing a
news report, sourcebook, article or novel. The
chances are that sooner or later you will have to
deal with weapon or military related topics. Using
the wrong term can easily make your efforts
worthless nonsense. Here are some common
mistakes that can easily be avoided.
Page 1 of 8
Magazines
One of the most common and prevalent
mistakes is also one of the easiest to avoid. There
are few ways that will as easily destroy your
credibility or that of your character as this
mistake. A “clip” is not a “magazine”. Despite
common misuse “clip” is not an alternative term
for “magazine”, they are separate and distinct
things. A clip is a mechanical component that fits
inside a magazine. To say they are the same is like
claiming a rabbit is the same as a burrow or a sock
the same as a foot! It is not “semantics”, it is just
plain wrong! I have known at least one veteran
soldier who would grind his teeth every time a
journalist, screen writer or supposed “expert” gun
writer made this mistake. Details that you may not
appreciate may matter a lot to others. If you
cannot get a basic detail like this right you might
as well give up writing.
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
The quick rule of thumb is, if you want to use
“clip” you should use “magazine”. Any time you
want to use “clip” you have a 99% chance of
getting it wrong, so don’t! For small arms clips are
something of an anachronism and only found is
some vintage weapons. Very few modern firearms
require ammunition to be loaded into a clip.
Rounds fit directly into the magazine. Futuristic
weapons are very unlikely to use a clip. See here
for more detailed explanations. If you take one
thing away from this article, make it this and your
writing will have improved considerably.
Page 2 of 8
Shrapnel
Shrapnel is a term that needs to be treated with
some caution. Any time you want to use
“shrapnel” instead of “fragments” or “splinters”,
there is a 95% chance of being wrong. Strictly
speaking shrapnel comes from a shrapnel shell.
Typically a shrapnel shell contains a mass of
musket balls of around half an inch diameter.
Unlike a shotgun shell or canister load, a shrapnel
shell explosively ejects its contents in mid-air.
Shrapnel shells were adopted in 1803, copied by
other nations and saw a decline in use during the
First World War, the large infantry formations
that were the intended target becoming
uncommon. Some later designs such as the
AHEAD anti-aircraft round could be legitimately
described as shrapnel. The term is actually seldom
used in modern military technology publications.
See here for a space warfare application of
shrapnel.
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
Most of the time someone uses the term
“shrapnel” they actually mean splinters or
fragments. It could be argued shrapnel has
become a generic term for such things but its
more definite meaning can cause problems. I
recently read a book where the author spoke of
“ground strewn with jagged shrapnel”, which is a
ludicrous oxymoron to the educated reader. A
very nice example of the problem was in the BBC
Musketeers series where a character claims men
have been wounded by shrapnel. Not only did she
actually mean wooden splinters and stone
fragments, but this constitutes an anachronism
too.
Incidentally, true shrapnel munitions usually do
not produce fragments too. The ejection charge is
too weak to rupture the casing.
It is tempting to use specialized jargon to create
the impression that you are knowledgeable. Not
doing your research and using it wrongly can
create the opposite effect.
Page 3 of 8
Shrapnel is a term best reserved for character
dialogue only. A good rule of thumb is “shrapnel”
is within the casing of a munition while
“fragments” are from the casing of a munition.
Shells, Shot and Grenades
A “shell” is a container. There are explosive
shells, gas shells, incendiary shells, smoke shells,
HEAT-shells, shrapnel shells and so on. Shotgun
cartridges are also called shells. “Shot” are solid
projectiles. The pellets from a shotgun are shot.
Non-explosive armour-piercing rounds fired by
tank and anti-tank guns are shot, not shells. A
“grenade” is a munition either thrown by hand or
by a low-velocity launcher. In some languages the
equivalent word has a broader meaning, closer to
that of shell. This use is creeping into English, via
such uses as mistranslations of RPG. A German
term for a mortar literally translates as “grenade-
launcher”, but using this term in English causes
confusion.
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
HEAT Warheads
Also known as “shaped-charge” or “hollow-
charge”. The name is from the acronym “high-
explosive anti-tank” and is not related to
temperature. Several misconceptions about these
warheads are related to temperature. One is that
the jet the explosion produced melts its way
through armour. In reality, the blast forces its way
through the armour. There is insufficient time and
heat to melt the armour. A related idea is that the
penetrating jet is of molten metal. While the jet is
very hot, it does not reach a sufficient temperature
to melt the cone-liner, which is usually a high
melting point metal such as copper or steel. The
liner is formed into a hot, malleable solid that is
forced through the armour.
Suppressor
You will find assertions that the term “silencer”
is wrong and that the correct term is “suppressor”
or “moderator”. This is a modern affection and is
actually wrong. Maxim’s first designs were called
Page 4 of 8
“silencers” so the term is legitimate. Many people
who claim this is wrong call magazines “clips”,
which tells you all you really need to know about
them! Suppressor and moderator are more
fashionable terms in modern usage so are the
terms more likely to be used by characters familiar
with firearms or military hardware. What term a
character uses will depend on their familiarity with
such devices and their era. A cop in the 1920s or a
modern civilian non-shooter is likely to claim a
suspect had a silencer.
Graticule vs Reticule
This is an easy one to remember. A graticule has
some form of graduations, a reticule does not.
Calibres
Weapon calibres are nominal, rather than
accurate measurements. Two weapons of the
same nominal calibre may use quite different
rounds of ammunition. It is not advisable to
round up calibres, nor convert them between
imperial and metric. Don’t call a 7.92mm rifle
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
8mm. Don’t describe a Browning HMG as
12.7mm, nor a DShK as .50.
Revolver
In some older books, “revolver” is used as a
generic term for a pistol or handgun. Characters
will draw a revolver which in a later passage is
identified as a Luger! You will also see revolvers
treated as being distinct from pistols. This
confusion is the result of “automatic” being
dropped from “automatic pistol”. Revolvers are
actually a subset of pistols or handguns, so calling
them pistols is permissible.
I have seen a couple of books or movies where
a character asks something like “How many
bullets are in the chamber?” The only possible
answers to this are “one” and “none”. This error
Page 5 of 8
comes from confusing a revolver's cylinder with a
chamber. A revolver has a cylinder with a number
of chambers in it. One round goes into each
chamber. Typically there are six chambers. Small
revolvers and large calibre designs may have fewer
chambers. Small calibre revolvers or some more
modern designs may have more. You can say that
a revolver only has “two shots in its cylinder”.
You cannot say it only has “two shots in its
chamber”.
Revolvers have a gap between the barrel and the
chamber. Therefore most revolvers cannot
effectively use a suppressor/ silencer. There are
exceptions to this but that stable of 70s cop
shows, the detective special with a little
Champaign cork-sized thing on the muzzle, is
pure fantasy.
Trading Shots
If two units are “trading shots” they are
shooting at each other. I would have thought that
this did not have to be explained, but I recently
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
read a book where several times artillery “trade
salvos” and the shots are then described as being
targeted against other units.
Incidentally, a weapon is not “the answer to…”
another system unless it is a direct counter to it.
The German Nebelwerfer was not the answer to
the Soviet Stalin’s Organ, it was its equivalent.
Jargon
Like many institutions and cultures the military
have their own jargon, some of which are
effectively shibboleth. You should familiarize
yourself with some of these before writing on the
subject. For traditional reasons the British
rifleman will call his bayonet “a sword”, no matter
Page 6 of 8
how short the blade. A private of a rifle regiment
will be a “rifleman”, not a “trooper” incidentally.
A more common tradition is the US military
practice of calling caps and hats “covers”.
A tradition to note is that US marines do not
refer to themselves as “soldiers”. One marine will
never call another a soldier. I have even seen a
marine chewing out kindergarten children on this
when the children had sent a letter “hoping that
he and the other soldiers were safe”. Traditions
and terminology matter.
Rank
In the English-speaking militaries, an NCO is
never addressed as “sir”. Civilians may be
addressed as “sir”, officers are “sir” but corporals,
sergeants and warrant officers are never “sir”.
You should not write on military matters unless
you have some comprehension of rank and how it
fits into a military structure. A major would not
normally command a rifle squad, nor would he be
commanding a division. There is a movie where a
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html
character is introduced as “a colonel in the SAS”.
Generally regiments only have one colonel, and
they are unlikely to be twenty-somethings who are
sent to single-handedly deal with alien invasions.
Details Matter
I could fill a book with dumb and avoidable
mistakes in modern media. Don’t assume you
know things, do some research. Some of your
assumptions will prove to be misconceptions,
which may be uncomfortable and difficult to
accept. Don’t claim an aircraft has a twelve-
cylinder engine when a couple of seconds’
research will tell the reader it had nine. Don’t fuel
your T34 with gasoline. Don’t give a character a
laser weapon and then have him notice the
increased recoil. A shotgun is not a rifle. “RPG”
does not actually stand for “rocket propelled
grenade”. “Chain-guns” do not have multiple
spinning barrels. They have single barrels and use
a chain to operate the bolt. Decimate does not
mean “nearly wipe out”. “Point blank” does not
Page 7 of 8
mean close, it means aimed without adjusting for
drop. A machine gun is not the same as a
submachine gun. A misfire means a gun does not
fire, not that it fires accidentally. Most tracked
vehicles are not tanks. Calling them tanks is cheap
sensationalism.
Good writing is in the details. Not bothering to
get the details right shows a contempt for your
reader and your subject. Even if your writing is
not sympathetic to the topic getting your details
right can only help you convey your message.
Just as important as getting your details right is
to be consistent. I have read books where a
firearm changes calibre four times in a short
paragraph, sometimes within the same sentence!
In a book I read recently a character is described
as a “dashing colonel”. Later in the same scene he
worries about offending a superior officer who is
a major. On the next page he is engaged in
conversation and is frequently addressed as
“major”. In a later scene set a day or so later he is
 http://phillosoph.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/common-mistakes-in-military-writing.html

once again called a colonel. This is just sloppy and

there is not really any defence for this.

The Books

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your
appreciation.
Thank You

Page 8 of 8