Talk:Ground Combat Vehicle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ground Combat Vehicle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ground Combat Vehicle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 20, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Land vehicles / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Initial Mil History assessment[edit]

Each paragraph needs a citation to qualify as B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strykers?[edit]

Initial unattributed comment about replacing Strykers is a BAE fantasy. I am replacing it with an attributed quote about the real targets for replacement. The Army just ordered more Strykers... 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HangFire (talk • contribs)

Full production doesn't begin until like 2020-ish. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the changes I made. If you have issue with the 2017 date in the original text, change it.

Please provide a citation for the Stryker replacement reference of have it deleted. If you continue to revert valid facts with citations with the old unsubstantiated Stryker text, I'll start a dispute. 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HangFire (talk • contribs)

The Stryker thing is cited with two sources. The best of these is this one. Also I'm not refuting the 2017 date 2017 is Initial production rate, 2020 is the Full production date. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... The Army Capabilities Integration Center is not even remotely at the center of the GCV RFP, and even then states the Stryker is not getting replaced but rather repurposed. The tracked versus wheeled bias also shows up in the self-contradictory sentence "tremendous operational capability, but it possesses little developmental potential." This is just echoes of the Rumsfeld era attempts to kill the vehicle by leaking a damning and erroneous assessment of it that proved entirely bogus in real time action soon afterwards in Iraq. Also you have to realize the Stryker is part of a family of vehicles used for just about everything worldwide. Saying it has little developmental potential is just code words for saying... we want it to have tracks, but be a better vehicle than that overweight failure, the Bradley.

The opening statement of this article is misleading, the initial point of the GCV is not to start replacing Strykers, not matter what the date is, and should be changed. My citations should not be so cavalierly discarded, either. HangFire (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Variants"[edit]

The "Variants" section doesn't actually say anything about variants, which is why I changed the section title. We don't have to go with my suggestion, but either the section needs to be about variants or the title needs to change. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 01:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

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 for move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program → Ground Combat Vehicle —

I originally called it that to distinguish it from an Armoured Fighting Vehicle. Marcus Qwertyus 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are many sorts of ground combat vehicle = vehicle used for combat on the ground. A more specific name is needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ground Combat Vehicle is too generic. I'd support United States Army Ground Combat Vehicle Program, or something like that, if a move is really needed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can always be tagged with an This article refers to the US Army's combat vehicle modernization program. For combat vehicle in general, see Armoured fighting vehicle. disambiguation tag. I didn't know the naming of this article would come back to haunt me this way.Marcus Qwertyus 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not right either, since those are armored ground combat vehicles. An unarmored humvee with a machine gun is still a ground combat vehicle. This report by Rand calls a robotic gun vehicle a ground combat vehicle, distinctly different from armored manned vehicles. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Labattblueboy and Anthony Appleyard. Excessive genericity. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Updates[edit]

This article could use text on developments over the last year or two. Help where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Maps Postwar Future for MRAPs, Hybrid Threats: Old World Strategies And New World Technologies Army Pays Scientists $90 Mil To Smash Stuff Good Why the U.S. Army is Wrong About Closing its Only Tank Plant HASC Bill Likely $4B Over DoD Request; $8B Over BCA Army wants to start replacing M113s in 2015 House Republicans’ alternate vision for defense Pentagon to House Republicans: We don't want more money Vehicles Strut Their Stuff in Desert Trials Visionaries Foresee Radically Different Military Vehicles [1] Army assesses current vehicles as part of Ground Combat Vehicle development process First Responder, Border Patrol, Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, and... (MarketWatch.com), Army assessing non-developmental vehicles Sen. Jeff Sessions: Huntsville space, missile defense programs fully funded in defense bill 'mark-up' New Study Outlines How the Military Could Create a Leaner, Less Expensive Force SOFIC 2012: L-3 nears One 360 production Think Tank Calls for Major U.S. Defense Reductions Army seeks to replace combat vehicles, but it won't be easy Pentagon Still Gearing Up For Ground Vehicles Army to pay $500M for Future Combat Systems termination Why Senate, House Authorizers Both Added Dough For Armor Army Mulls $1.7 Billion Effort To Replace 3,000 M113s First Lady of Defense (Military & Aerospace Electronics) US Army Evaluates the Israeli Namer, Swedish CV9035 AIFVs at Ft. Bliss Soldiers return from Fort Bliss assessment [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/07/army-muses-on-gcv-after-test-drives-in-the-desert/ Army muses on GCV after test-drives in the desert AMPV Program Should be U.S. Army’s Highest Priority Army seeks to replace combat vehicles, but it won't be easy Making what’s old, new again The Most Important Things U.S. Army Maps Out Postwar Vehicle Needs Textron Inks Another Armored Vehicle Deal TEN CATE : Cate Advanced Armor targets army modernization programs for enhanced survivability Total Cost To Close Out Cancelled Army FCS Could Top $1 Billion Lima tank plant faces risk of 3-year production hiatus Army Drops Universal Camouflage After Spending Billions Machining line staying at JSMC, for now (LimaOhio.com) Pentagon parade previews Army network upgrade Budget Analysts: ‘Efficiencies’ Won’t Cut it, Could Backfire on Pentagon U.S. Army's Canceled Future Combat System Wasn't a Total Waste of Money DARPA META Project for highly adapable foundry style manufacturing of military vehicles General Dynamics Management Discusses Q2 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript Priority rests on the Network Priority rests on the Network.

Let me know if any of these links don't work. The non-linked articles are ones I couldn't immediately reach. I would like to merge GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle back into this article. There is no distinction and I am almost certain there are no other planned variants variants with this program so far. The self-propelled howitzer is a different program. The "secondary vehicle" was optimistic speculation on my part based on my interpretation of the old RfP. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Woo, information overload. I did start looking through those links a day or two ago. I want update on the contract awarded in 2011 first, then any other contract related work done. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv/
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 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

I apologize for the current turgid state of this article. I am merging GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle into this article. That's probably going to take me a full day of editing. I'll pick at it over the course of this month. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ground Combat 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:

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) 12:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]