Think people need to get off the playing field of names meaning something, for example the British had dragoons ... which wern't dragoons and were infact just heavy cavalry ... much the same infact of name changing, just because the name changed from lancers to hussars or hussars to lancers didn't mean their equiptment changed at all ... or infact they had the equiptment their name suggests.
For example both British and French at waterloo had dragoons ... neither side used cavlary rifles.
Much can be the same for hussars and lancers, the british name changing from hussars to lancers dosn't imply an equiptment change, nor does it apply that when they were hussars they wern't using lances.
You'll find much the same with modern armies, the majority of "Air Corps" are actually on the ground and probably hire more guards than they do pilots. The "Army Air Corps" of Britain majoritily sits on the ground ... so are they Army or Air Corps?
This is just a bit of point proving for naming of regiments for military aspects ... like secret services ... that everybody knows about.