Talk:Armoured fighting vehicle

Merge

This is not much of an article, serving as only a list of links. Armoured fighting vehicle classification serves a similar purpose, but has a little more meat, and helps explain the main types. There's no reason why that material shouldn't be here, with a bit more of an introduction. —Michael Z. 2006-02-03 19:45 Z

I agree. Bukvoed 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the support. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 17:31 Z

innacurate

ive noted that most tank related articals on wikipedia are in serious need of an experts opinion, they did well with the most recent edit of the overall tank page. but i would like to note that armoured cars also fall into the catagory of AFV's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.195.26 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

incorrect redirect from armored vehicle

armored vehicle should not direct to "Armored Fighting Vehicle." I literally am looking for armored (hardened) vehicles such as SUVs, limousines, and others used by diplomats, heads of state, etc.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cv90 8.jpg

Image:Cv90 8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheeled IFVs

This article says little about wheeled IFVs such as the ATF Dingo or Force Protection Industries Cougar HE. This is the fastest growing vehicle category, and should probably be mentioned. Tmaull 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Top Ten

1. M113 Arm Per carrier- US (over 80,000 built, 40+ years service)
2. M2 Bradley - US
3. MCV80 Warrior – British
4. Stryker - US
5. "Haninag"? sp.? - Ger - can't find this one
6. BMP-1
7. Universal Carrier
8. M3 Bradley or M3 Scout car, not sure??
9. LTV 4 Alligator – US, British
10. Hummvee

* See also: List of military vehicles

Rated by Military Channel's "Top Ten Infantry Fighting Vehicles" program, aired 9 Dec 07, 10:00AM MST. With interruptions, I got most of the Top 10 List, can anyone help here. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is 5. the SdKfz 251 halftrack, designed by Hanomag? Beegfrog (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I must concur that this list looks reasonable, however it's unclear which is the criteria used to compile it. Number produced? Number of armies using a vehicle? Having been "cutting edge" at IOC/prototype testing? Any other? Please clarify, and provide a "verifiable" source for the "top ten"; as this can be cause of a never-ending dispute. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the M3 Bradley ... mainly conducts scout missions and carries two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three (as per wikiarticle M3 Bradley), hence it's not an IFV, so it must be removed from this top-ten IFV list. And as it's a variant of the to the M2 Bradley, this would be twice in the list (anyway!). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the Hummvee is NOT an IFV! As per it's own wikiarticle, ...is a military 4WD motor vehicle created by AM General. It has largely supplanted the roles formerly served by the M151 1/4 ton MUTT, the M561 "Gama Goat", their M718A1 and M792 ambulance versions, the CUCV, and other light trucks with the United States military, .... So it must be removed from this top-ten IFV list. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Haninag"? sp.? - this is almost certainly the German Hanomag Sd.Kfz. 251 half-track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.49.232 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mecha

Sorry to have reverted the major addition of mecha, but this article is not about fiction. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 04:39 z

Is an APC an AFV?

Is an armoured personnel carrier (APC) an armoured fighting vehicle? If so, shouldn't this article have a summary section about APCs, similar to the sections about tanks etc. On the other hand, if an APC is not an AFV (because it is designed primarily to transport infantry, not for direct combat), then the APC article needs changes. Nurg (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally an APC is an AFV as although the vehicle is basically a 'battlefield taxi', it is armoured so as to be able to be used on the battlefield, as opposed to being 'soft-skinned' like a truck. Therefore an APC is still a Fighting Vehicle which is why the UK APCs all had FV designations, e.g., FV432, FV603 Saracen, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.49.232 (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Monowheel AFV's

Should monowheel afv's be mentioned seperatly ?Monowheel afv's are I believe not tracked since the "wheel" is rigid and not loosely transformable (not sure whether it contains air)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.6.252 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Armoured fighting vehicle → Combat vehicle — Not only is it more common but it is also an opportunity for commonality. Combat vehicle: 15,900, armored fighting vehicle: 2,300 + 3,230. Also the U.S. military has recently started soliciting combat vehicles in RfPs. --Marcus Qwertyus 00:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose if you looked at some of those hits your searches brought up, you'd see that not all of the are armored. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Combat vehicles are not always armored.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  If I were trying to get combat vehicle moved to Armoured fighting vehicle, you would argue that not all combat vehicles are armoured. The increased scope of combat vehicle is yet another advantage to a move. Marcus Qwertyus 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Write a new article if you want to do that. Armoured vehicles are a notable topic in and of themselves, and are a distinct development from unarmoured vehicles, due to the restrictions imposed by armouring. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  AFVs are a type of combat vehicle and that latter article should briefly deal with AFVs with a reference to the main AFV article for those wanting more detail. Trying to cover all types in detail and length in a single article is counter-productive; not least due to article length if they were properly detailed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not only are combat vehicles not always armoured, but AFV has been the standard term used by militaries and military historians for decades. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Motorcycles, trucks, UAVs - all are combat vehicles. As per Necrothesp also.

Google:

afv -"funniest videos" = 5,640,000 [1]

"combat vehicle" -AFV = 1,460,000

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously we don't include armored A-10 Warthogs as AFVs. Marcus Qwertyus 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is a Combat Vehicle isn't it ? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support People just won't say anything as long winded as "armoured fighting vehicle" -- even the article uses "AFV". I don't think such TLAs (three letter abbreviations) look very encyclopedic. Web hits are meaningless when the numbers are very high like this. Google isn't actually counting to 5.6 million. Besides "America's Funniest Home Videos", AFV also stands for "alternative fuel vehicle," which gets a lot of hits too. Here is an ngram of the different possibilities. As for unarmoured combat vehicles, combat vehicle is currently a redirect to here. The issue of dividing up material into subarticles arises only after someone has written too much material to fit into one article. Kauffner (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History

Is it just me, or would the first AFV been something more like the chariot, early battlewagons, elephants, etc? I'd need to go do more checking (later, it's bedtime), but I'm certain that the AFV/IFV predates the internal combustion engine. Besieged (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of 'armoured' and 'vehicle' - I would argue that whilst animals have been armoured for warfare, and fighting vehicles such as chariots have been around for centuries, it's only really with the ICE that the two have been combined. I've certainly never heard of pre-ICE machines being called AFVs, but if someone knows of a machine that was armoured and pre-dated the ICE then it could be worth a mention. Jellyfish dave (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the first two minutes of "Lock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey: Season 1, Ep. 6 - Armored Vehicles", the assertion is made that the Trojan Horse can be considered one of the earliest Armored Fighting Vehicles. To wit, "... a tank's main job is to spearhead an attack ahead of advancing infantry. Armored Fighting Vehicles are designed to get the troops where they're needed... so they can go in and finish the job; I guess you could argue that the legendary Trojan horse of Greek mythology was one of the earliest examples of an Armored Personnel Carrier, but things didn't really get going with AFV's until the arrival of the internal combustion engine."

That said, while I can't argue with the experience of R. Lee and the staff writing on the show, just because "things didn't get going until the I.C.E." doesn't mean there weren't noteworthy early examples, it just means nobody ever mass produced them. Saying (or implying) that they functionally didn't exist until their mass production began is like saying the Model T was the first car and no noteworthy others came before it.

As a matter of fact, besides many other unique examples purpose made for a given battle who didn't really survive to be recorded into history, what about the armored battering ram? Certainly on more than a few occasions, battering rams were brought in for sieges that were carried on wheeled, wooden frames with a reinforced roof to protect the men manning it from oil, arrows, and other attack while they battered at the gates until they fell, at which time the troops manning the ram would exit the "vehicle" (as it were) and engage by hand the enemy?

All I'm trying to get at here is I don't think the language or implication here is correct. By any reasonable technical definition, there MUST have been numerous equivalent examples of AFV's and APC's throughout the history of warfare, and to deny them their place in encyclopedic coverage with such blanket language is unfortunate. The article may still desire to focus on major or modern examples, but homage and reference should still be paid to those designs that preceded and inspired them. Seems to me the definition of an AFV is by nature any vehicle designed to move troops to or around the battlefield while protecting them from enemy attack that also allows attacks on the enemy to be prosecuted from within said vehicle, and the War wagon seems a pretty clearly noteworthy as a historical precursor; I'm sure there must be others as well, and hence my issue with the language in this section, as it casts too wide a net. Besieged (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

'Armoured Fighting Vehicle' is a specific military term, and has been so for around a century. The others almost certainly wouldn't have been referred-to as such. The Trojan Horse for example, would probably not have been called a 'vehicle'. And the horse itself wasn't intended to do any fighting. The term Armoured Fighting Vehicle really refers to a self-powered military vehicle that carries armour to protect its occupants and features its own armament for either offence, or self-protection.

So 'Armoured Fighting Vehicle' means effectively a tank, an APC, or an armoured car, and the term only came about with the rise of mechanised warfare. If you go back any earlier you will probably not find the term used in any contemporary sources. But that's just MHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Confusion in article - general revision and change is needed

RfC: Confusion in article - general revision and change is needed?

There is a lot of confusion in this article. It is not relevant even in using some already established definitions with their own articles.

For start lets look section "Improvised fighting vehicle". In that section it for example M1117 Armored Security Vehicle picture but I have moved it to other section when stated editing this article. In the same section there is Humvee picture. After careful consideration I came to conclusions that little edits like that cannot enough improve this article and that there is too much to change. Because of that I started this section in talk.

I will quote:"An improvised fighting vehicle is ad hoc combat vehicle resulting from modified, added or upgraded civilian or military non-combat vehicle by civilians or rebels or some unofficial army like guerrilla or resistant movement and when talked about official army it is done by army logistics workshops in order to give it a fighting capability. Such modifications usually consist of the grafting of armour plating and weapon systems."

Serial produced vehicles are by no mean "improvised". They could be "improvised" only and only if for example army workshop add additional armour plates on serial produced vehicles. In that case it should be presented appropriate picture with description of improvisation that has been done.

In section "Infantry mobility vehicle" there is sentence :"The up-armoured M1114 Humvee variant can be seen as an adaptation of the unarmoured Humvee to serve in the IMV role." The up-armoured M1114 Humvee could be I quote part of Wikipedia:"scout, military police, and explosive ordnance disposal vehicle with improved ballistic protection levels." I agree with this definition so up-armoured M1114 should be mentioned in "Scout car" section and/or in "Infantry mobility vehicle" by looking described definitions.

And now lets get back on beginning of article and presented definition of AFV :"An armoured fighting vehicle (or armored fighting vehicle; AFV) is a combat vehicle, protected by strong armour and armed with weapons, which combines operational mobility, tactical offensive, and defensive capabilities. AFVs can be wheeled or tracked. It is not uncommon for AFVs to be simply referred to as "armour" (or "armor")."

NATO definition of AFV is:"armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) – neither a tank nor an armoured personnel carrier, but a hybrid evolved in an era of fast-paced warfare in which infantry must keep up with tanks. An AFV like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle used by the U.S. military carries a squad of infantry. The Soviet-designed BMP-1 carries infantry and is armed with an anti-tank missile launcher and a 73mm gun. The British GKN Warrior is a 25-tonne tracked armoured vehicle with a 30mm cannon."

Main purpose of AFV in any army of world is engaging with enemy infantry and other AFV's or other vehicles that could be attacked with weapons platform that AFV carries. Not a single army in this world in official communication considers Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon or Self-propelled artillery or MRL as AFV's. For example given definiton for AFV refers to "protected by strong armour". What strong armour is on all Self propelled guns or MRL etc. It should be defined that "strong armour" is armoure above STANAG 4569 level V protection for modern AFV's.

Its seems to me by looking article that everything that has any kind of armour or has some kind of weapon is considered AFV's including trains, improvised fighting vehicles, armoured vehicle-launched bridge(many of them don't have any weapons, for example M60 AVLB, MT-55), Combat engineer section carriers etc. And adding "Multiple rocket launcher" to this article is with all I mentioned before clear sign that this article need a lot of improvment and it is misguiding readers as it is presented now.

This article has become a "Category" for itself and clearly it is not a article about AFV's.

Let's see what a manufacturer considers as AFV at http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/solutions-and-capabilities/fres-and-armoured-fighting-vehicles .

This article is out of intended and defined scope for AFV. Article with this headline should be concentrated only at AFV's and all irelevant content deleted or renamed to "Armored combat vehicle" for example. ACV refers to "armoured combat vehicle" and means a self-propelled vehicle with armoured protection and cross-country capability. Armoured combat vehicles include armoured personnel carriers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles given by NATO definitions.

If renamed to "Armored combat vehicle" it is possible to contain approximately 1/3 of current content but there is still a need to remove some portions of content that don't belong to "Armored combat vehicle" definition.

In this way as this article is now if I am for example a general or colonel in some army and request some AFV's for combat support for my infantry in fight it is high chance that someone will send me M60 AVLB bridge. There should be some encyclopedic standards in this article before it becomes subject for ridicule.

It is urgent to change this article. Loesorion (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Its a little difficult for me to follow exactly what you think isn't an AFV. But it comes down to what sources say. Many sources put self-propelled guns in there. The British Army includes all its reconnaisance vehicles and even the Snatch Land Rover under that title on its website. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi GraemeLeggett, thx for response. Can you cite your sources for your claim and if self-propelled artillery is AFV what else is or not AFV? I have read many articles after your input and I could not find such definition by British Army in any official document.

If you ask me AFV is "armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) – neither a tank nor an armoured personnel carrier, but a hybrid evolved in an era of fast-paced warfare in which infantry must

keep up with tanks. An AFV like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle used by the U.S. military carries a squad of infantry. The Soviet-designed BMP-1 carries infantry and is armed with an anti-tank missile launcher and a 73mm gun. The British GKN Warrior is a 25-tonne tracked armoured vehicle with a 30mm cannon." nothing more and nothing less. Look at: http://www.au.af.mil/pace/handbooks/pa_handbook_nato.pdf

So AFV is not :

• Tank, Tankette, Super-heavy tanks, Flame tank, Aerosani, Scout car, Internal security vehicle, Improvised fighting vehicle, Armoured personnel carrier, Amphibious vehicles, Assault breacher vehicle, Armoured bulldozer, Armoured recovery vehicle, Armoured vehicle-launched bridge, Combat engineer section carriers, Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon, Self-propelled artillery, Assault gun carriage, Mortar carrier, Multiple rocket launcher, Armoured train and everything that has no weapons and have armour below STANAG 4569 level V for modern vehicles(1960-). Loesorion (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think you'll find the term is more inclusive than exclusive. There's The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles by C Foss is described by the publisher as "a comprehensive illustrated reference tool for the armoured fighting vehicles of the world". over 900 entries covers "tanks, reconnaissance vehicles, armoured personnel carriers and tank destroyers/assault guns". The AFV Profile series of the 1970s covered tanks (from light to heavy), armoured cars, SP guns, and Universal Carriers]. There's also books such as George Forty's World War Two AFVs: Armoured Fighting Vehicles and Self-propelled Artillery or Modern Tanks: 60 Years of Armoured Fighting Vehicles subtitled "An Illustrated A-Z Catalogue of Tanks, Armoured Vehicles, Tank Destroyers, Command Versions and Specialized Tanks from 1945 to the Present Day". Or Duncan Crow's Armoured Fighting Vehicles of Germany - World War II. Or possibly anything from the British that had an "Fighting Vehicle" (FV) number GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you have but that is some authors point not official British army designations for AFV term. So I was on to http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23206.aspx and my understanding of British AFV definition is that is similar to GCV term used mostly in USA and ACV term used in international military alliance documnets. Armoured combat vehicles (ACV) include armoured personnel carriers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles given by NATO definitions. To summarize British definition AFV are:Protected patrol vehicles, Reconnaissance vehicles, Combat vehicles(include tanks and IFV).

There is no Self-propelled artillery, Assault gun carriage, Mortar carrier, Multiple rocket launcher, Armoured train etc...

Still it is possible that ACV is even for British army more official term when we look official document signed by British government - Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe[2]. I think in Wikipedia English we should take in consideration international meanings of some terms and documents that are official and signed by most governments, defense ministries, manufacturers(they should known what are producing) or military alliances about English acronyms for weapons systems and in this case some kind of army vehicles used worldwide.

For example in this document [3] about British MOD procurement, Protected Patrol Vehicles (PPVs) are not some subcategory of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). They are equals and not one under other. And finally in [4] there is official definition by UK government what is AF in page number 78.

I quote: B3.1 Armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) are bespoke land military vehicles optimised for close combat operations which possess appropriate levels of survivability, lethality and mobility to enable operations in a high threat environment. They perform in general utility as well as specialised roles and can be either wheeled or tracked.

So I think that we should reach some consensus and to use ACV instead AFV or GCV even they are similar in practical use because ACV is international defined acronym by NATO and OSCE and to delete everything in this article that is not defined as ACV. Loesorion (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A treaty or international agreement can have a narrow frame of reference, as can documents internal to a single military. That said, the MoD document you give above lumps Saxon, FV430 and Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance under the heading of AFV on page 80 of the pdf and the same page also implies Challenger, AS90 and other vehicles also count as AFV. As this looks to be a question of opinions, I'd like to call in others from the WP:MILHIST project. As a group they will have access to a multitude of sources.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My considered opinion is that regardless of the term used, ACV/GCV or whatever these remain subcategories of AFV. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the scope of the article should include what Encyclopedias define as AFV's per GraemeLeggett's post, not the narrow definition of specific militaries (Although those definitions could be mentioned in the article). (Hohum ^@) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To add my two cents. I'm a big WWII Eastern Front enthusiast, and I've read and heard military historians and experts call all sort of combat vehicles AFVs. If it's not soft-skinned and is used in combat, then it gets called an AFV. Assault guns, self-propelled guns, tanks, APCs, tankettes, etc, have all been referred to as AFVs by several experts and historians. Some of those that quickly come to mind are: D. Glantz, L. Clark, J. House, N. Zetterling, V. Zamulin, M. Healy, M. Barbier, A. Frankson, J. Erickson, etc.EyeTruth (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth I agree that some authors and historians have used AFV in broader terms. And most of them have not been officers and non-commissioned officer in army and some haven't even been a soldiers. While I am saying that I am not undermining them and their work but it is possible that they use some terms in a free form or as they wish and that is normal for author of book to have a freedom in creation. But to call all MLR's(most don't have armour) or all self-propelled artillery(some of them also don't have armour and modern howitzers have range of up to 70km so they are not for close combat as defined by British MOD AFV acronym that I posted above) or other vehicles without weapons(bridge) or armour as AFV's it is of question. And Horse-drawn Carriage or Chariot has became AFV? They are all if used by military land military vehicles but not AFV's. Some general category could be "land military vehicles" as is current content of this article. Were is armour on "Tachanka". And article in Design section of AFV at first place has Armour as subsection. And don't forget that AFV is "Armoured fighting vehicle" so minimum is armour and weapon in same vehicle if we take it literally.

And it is important to define what is minimum armour of AFV thought subcategories. What is Tank and could be that be some vehicle with light armour. But in all this we also must look what official military uses as terminology today and in recent past because they are users and who can tell as better then them and manufactures what is AFV. It is important to have clear definition based on official documents as references because any other references can lead to misinterpretations.

SonofSetanta why we should put ACV and GCV under AFV and not as equals there must be clear reason for that?

GraemeLeggett I agree that others from WP:MILHIST project should be called and included because it is imperative that articles have clear scope and standards to avoid confusion and that if more people give participation in this discussion better fruits it will gain for article. Loesorion (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

But I thought Wikipedia represents the broader or more encompassing perspective. If the article will be representing the view of just one or two armed forces, then we will need to place this tag on it: {{Globalize/country|date=June 2013}}.

PS. But I agree that this article has expanded past its jurisdiction. Chariots and stuff like that are just taking things too far. Besides, most of the content in this article lacks citations to begin with. The main issue with this article is original research. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things in response to points raised above

wikipedia, a bit like a dictionary, recognises usage of a term ( WP:Commonname and such) and does not try to make its own definitions though it may note what various groups define a term as.

Reliable sources are just that - reliable whether they ex-plumbers writing about geography or civilians writing about military matters (mentioning in passing that the AFV Profile series had a number writers which were ex- or serving).

We have to recognise the term as it has been used - technically a armoured vehicle manufacturer is too close to the subject to accept their word absolutely. The requirement is for sources that are "independent of the subject". The Ruritanian Army could issue a document saying that nothing under 25 tons and 75mm gun is an AFV and that their latest purchase uses a different three letter acronym but if the professor of military science at the university of Freedonia says that it is an AFV, then a wikipedia article could place it in that category . GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Armoured"? Why?

Why is this article using the British spelling for something that is quite decidedly not British specific, nor of British origin?

By my count, there are far more American English speakers than British, so should the Wikipedia not be catering to the larger use group. If a student were to use this article for research (but clearly not as a source) and were to mirror the spelling usage here, they would unquestionably be demerited for the doing. The same might go for a British student were they to use "armored" instead of "armoured", however they are a far smaller group that is less likely overall to suffer from such confusion.

For that matter, not even my spell checker accepts "armoured" as valid... because it isn't. I don't normally go for the "pure democracy" mob rule view, but in this case, as regards language, I should think that ~316 million American English speakers and their accepted correct spelling would trump ~63 million British English speakers, especially since it is easily debatable that American English has evolved less since the Plymouth Rock landings than has British English, and that American English remains closer to the Shakespearian dialect than the vast majority of British dialects.

bes'i'e'g'e^talk 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Because of the manual of style (eg WP:TIES) which says "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other" with the result that - in the absence of a strong link with the subject - permit articles to be written in either British English or American English. And once using one form they stay in that one. As a result, there are a mix of articles that use the "our" spelling and the "or" - vehicle armour and armored car (military).

I have added a note about spelling differences to clarify the matter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Besides, British English is used in India, a country of more than a billion people. —88.166.211.161 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

'Armour' and 'armoured' are the official NATO spellings and have been so since its formation in the late 1940s. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.47 (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-best-armoured-personnel-carriers-4142101/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Circumfolgore, etc.

Da Vinci's wheeled, cannon-carrying vehicle and his circumfolgore were different things. The former did not have the paddles et cetera that a recent edit claims, or anything that might suggest amphibiousness, and the latter was designed as an actual boat carrying radial cannon on a rotating platform.

I think it's also time to stop perpetuating the idea that his cannon carrier was "a tank" or in some way a direct ancestor. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition. It would have been - just - an AFV, but not a tank. Hengistmate (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Da Vinci's Proposed Machine.

I have found no definitive proof that the number of crew was eight. There are no crewmen visible in the sketches. Have also altered text to reflect that this was a) a theoretical design that was not built, and b) a sketch, not a worked-out drawing. No need to mention animals, since da Vinci did not envisage animal propulsion in the sketches as they stand. Hengistmate (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armoured fighting vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612112125/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110606/wl_afp/mexicocrimedrugweapons to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110606/wl_afp/mexicocrimedrugweapons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armoured fighting vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213100806/http://www.tedescos.com/Pages/VJ/monograph2.pdf to http://www.tedescos.com/Pages/VJ/monograph2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ParkPatriot2015part1-66-M-1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ire-1916-Dublin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)