setsneedtofeed

Officially it is called 106mm in all of the documentation. However it is in reality 105mm. The name change was made to help prevent mixing up ammunition with the M27 which is also 105mm. So it is one of those things where "yes but no." no matter what you call it.

But also there is a .50 caliber spotting rifle on top, so yes and yes.

Calling the M40 design 106mm.

Here is a complete round of ammunition for the M40 recoilless rifle, which the Pakistani weapon is a direct liscened copy of. Firing it works similarly to a conventional small arm.

There is a primer which sets off the propellant inside the casing which builds up pressure and pushes the projectile forward. With recoilless rifles, the difference is that the casing also has many holes in it which vent out some of the pressure that would otherwise go to propelling the projectile.

That vented pressure goes out of escape ports in the back. That vented pressure pushes the rifle forward at the same time that the recoil from the projectile's pressure is pushing it back, leading to essentially no recoil.

Recoilless weapons are common. Larger ones can be mounted on lightweight vehicles with no danger of the recoil knocking the vehicle over. The M40 being the American example, and the Soviet SPG-9 as a counterpart.

Other commonly seen recoilless weapons are the Carl Gustav, which has a different venting arrangement but follows the same principles.

The AT-4 which is a simplified, smoothbore derivative of the Carl Gustav.

Even the RPG-2 is a smoothbore recoilless weapon rather than a rocket launcher.

The RPG-7 uses a recoilless firing method to expel its rounds, which are then normally assisted by rocket motors that kick in when the projectile is already in flight, leading to many of the rounds for RPG-7s to be considered rockets (based on who is doing the classifying) however rounds like the OG-7 lack a rocket motor and are fired entirely by the expelling charge which also makes them recoilless projectile rounds.

In the same vein, Greek daemons represent unpredictable supernatural beings of the same type as gods though with much less power.

The idea of unpredictable supernatural beings is one of those things independently created by unconnected cultures to either explain natural oddities or to serve the plot of some kind of aesop.

I think you've answered your own question. The Disney Aladdin variant of the genie left a huge pop culture footprint. Not like it was the first benign genie, but got a lot of exposure.

However that runs parallel with the other sort of genie that grants wishes not as intended. That interpretation has never gone away.

The President does not have a "economic depression on/off" switch.

The Great Depression started only a few months into Hoover's term. There's a lot of opinions on what exactly created the crash but the general TLDR is it was multiple long standing factors finally coming to a head; what factors had what weight is up to economists to argue. That aside, a crash like that is not the kind of thing that can easily or quickly be undone.

Under Hoover, the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was passed (as we all learned from Ferris Bueller's Day Off) and it was a mistake. It was however an attempt to solve the Depression, if you're looking for an example of a political attempt to fix things.

Hoover lost to FDR, but it's not like FDR instantly undid the Depression. There were numerous ups and downs under FDR, critically with unemployment remaining high until 1939. The Depression ended in 1939 when WW2 breaking out in Europe created a demand for American manufacturing, which is external global events creating an external demand.

You've gotten answers pretty much covering all the reasons. I want to comment about Roger's Rangers, which is an example to show that military leaders in the 1700s were not ignorant of the value of camouflaged, stealthy units.

This was a British light infantry unit, starting as a single company and eventually expanded to a corps, that was first active in the French & Indian War. This unit was valued for its ability to scout, and perform unique missions like raids and ambushes deep in enemy territory.

The unit was active on the side of the Crown in the American Revolution, though some veterans joined the continental forces, meaning both sides used light infantry scouts.

Ranging units were a known and valued asset, however a military entirely made up of light infantry rangers wouldn't function. While these units could ambush and raid with the element of surprise on their side, in open field battles or static sieges they lost a lot of their punch. These units could deal damage and gather intelligence, but couldn't be relied on to hold ground against a conventional military assault.

Adding to this, battlefields are chaotic and with black powder smoke and no radio, friendly fire becomes an outsized concern. It has to be very clear what side troops are on. In the U.S. Civil War there are many incidents of troops firing on the same side who are wearing the wrong color. As an example the, the Union 2nd Wisconsin took friendly fire for wearing grey uniforms.

Even today in an era of radios, smokeless powder, and extended ranges we've seen a lot of bright markings used by both sides in Ukraine in situations where they feared friendly fire more than not being camouflaged.

"Welcome to your master bedroom!" was playing in my head during that one part of the movie, which probably deflated the tension a bit.

"You know which ones are settlements in need of your help dontcha?"

"...all of them?"

Now that you have identified your mistake, you can correct it.