Talk:Commando Jeep

Promotional

This reads an awful lot like a press release, and contains some of the POV problems that come with that.Anmccaff (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is far too promotional; it has the appearance of paid editing.

One thing that must happen here is that the great majority of text about other vehicles and about tactical background must be removed. Too many of the references say nothing about this modification. The modification is barely notable, but the storm of text and references gives a false sense of importance. References that don't mention the Commando Jeep modification should be limited to a brief background section explaining why the Commando people decided to offer the modification. Even so, such a background section should still be based primarily on references that mention the Commando. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is too far gone to just edit; every sentence has stuff that is flat out wrong, or is of questionable importance, or is only tangentially relevant. What's worse is this person has linked it to a good many jeep-related articles, some where it has no point except to generate notice. Rapid (or is that speedy?) deletion?Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please review the edits on my Commando Jeep article based off your concerns. Thanks for the feedback.User:Wheeler2014 — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that must have been a difficult concession. A major improvement. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and guidance Binksternet as this is my first Wikipedia article. I am enjoying being a part of the Wikiepedia community. Any other guidance is much appreciated.

User:Anmccaff I appreciate your expertise. With regards to a few of your recent edits, ultralight is a new class of vehicle as defined by the U.S. Army Maneuver Center. See: Information Paper, Maneuver Conference Read Ahead, and recent Defense News article US Army Officials: Field Ultralight Vehicles Quickly. Further, regarding the definition of a "tactical vehicle" supporting small units, the U.S. Army Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy defines their fleet of vehicles supporting a range of functions, not all supporting small units. The Commando Jeep supporting small units is also referenced in the prior noted sources as well as in a U.S. Army RDECOM briefing. These also support the most recent concerns mentioned on dubious terms, example, "airborne forces", "combat engineers" etc. (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015

"Ultra Lightweight Combat Vehicle (ULCV)" is an Army developmental maneuver class. It's a phrase, not a string of words. The string of words can, and, in this case does, mean something different. (Older uses of ultralight implied either that the thing could be horsed around manageably by passenger and crew, or that it was noticeable lighter than a standard version, for instance.) The dubiousness is not on particular units using the vehicle, but that it was designed for them. The Wrangler could equally be described as "designed for suburbanite poseur outdoors(wo)men." It might be adapted successfully for tactical use, but that's a slightly different thing.Anmccaff (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For an example, look at this:

"Senior Army leaders have been calling for such a capability, including Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Daniel Allyn and Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, director of the Army Capabilities and Integration Center. Allyn years earlier, as chief of the 18th Airborne Corps, signed off on an operational-needs request for the capability. 'We know that we need a middleweight, mobile, protected firepower platform to allow early entry forces to seize and exploit the initiative,' Allyn told reporters in October." (From http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/01/15/armys-ultralight-vehicles/21768987/ )

Notice it is suddenly "middleweight." Anmccaff (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Allyn is speaking at this particular point in the article here about the third vehicle in the trio of new platforms, which is called "Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)"

"...'We know that we need a middleweight, mobile, protected firepower platform to allow early entry forces..."

and referenced along with the entire trio in this briefing (http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/maneuverconference/ReadAhead/MRD/MRDWFTRconf21Aug.pdf). See slide 3 bottom right corner and slide 4. Wheeler2014|talk]]) 8:10, 17 January 2015

Could very well be, but it is an example of the level of precision of the articles you are using as support.Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Understand it may take some effort to comprehend, I have been tracking and researching this for a while myself, but the sources are valid and I haven’t found anything to contradict. Please do let me know if there is anything you come across that would do so. Wheeler2014 (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly hard to understand. You are claiming that a particular vehicle met specs because a group of vehicles it was among met them, or came close enough. Let's see something that says this particular vehicle did, that doesn't come, directly or indirectly, from a press release....or take the claims out. Or express them as claims.Anmccaff (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I follow what you are saying. But the claim in this particular statement is that it completed the PPD, however as you mentioned below it could have been successfully or unsuccessfully. What would you propose for the statement to read? Wheeler2014 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another good reference you may not have seen is the article for Ultra Light Combat Vehicle. Also, it seems you may be confusing a Jeep Wrangler with the Commando. You mentioned "You can't get 9 men and equipment in a Wrangler" and further added to the article, "(although it does not meet some ULCV specs,)".

Where do you have any arms-length documentation that it does? You had an open commercial demonstration, almost anyone could show up at that. COTS means, by definition, "off the shelf," only minimal modification of the platform. There's only so far you can stretch things.Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the ULCV and your question as to the specs, although I am not familiar with the full extent of a PPD other than to seek validation of said requirements by demonstration, the documents released by the Maneuver Center in addition to the Defense News (a prominent media outlet) statements from Mr. Pignato (vehicle analyst at MCoE and also the main contact listed in the FBO [1]) and Lt. Col. Kevin Parker (light systems branch chief at MCoE), identify that the PPD validated the requirements:

"The ULCV Platform Performance Demonstration (PPD) conducted at Fort Bragg, NC from 2-13 June 2014 validated that the draft threshold requirements are achievable. Demonstrated technology shows that the current state of industry is at Technology Ready Level 7 (TRL 7) or better with regard to producing a vehicle capable of: carrying 9 Soldiers with equipment, being transported via UH-60A sling load, traveling 250 miles on internal fuel, demonstrating high mobility, and supporting DRAS from C17 aircraft. Six vendors, at their own expense, participated in the ULCV PPD.” (http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/maneuverconference/ReadAhead/MRD/MRDULCVinfopaper13%20August.pdf)

""Industry is saying, 'I can build this right now for you, I just need someone to say go,' " said Carl Pignato, a light combat vehicle analyst at the MCoE's mounted requirements division."

“The demonstration showed the Army that it could find an affordable solution to its requirements among existing vehicles, enabling it to skip an expensive tech development stage that might have doomed it in the current budget environment, Parker said.” (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/01/15/armys-ultralight-vehicles/21768987/)

Now we may not know the exact specs for the Commando ULCV configuration, but these references give us some idea of the capabilities. Wheeler2014 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that 9 men can't fit in a Wrangler, but the Commando is not a Wrangler, only based on the Wrangler (much like the Snatch Land Rover is based on the Defender) and further modified in a ULCV configuration that is suitable to accommodate 9 men and equipment.

You may not have picked a very good example there, aside from the "Mobile Coffin's" dubious reputation for fighting serious opponents, the civilian nominal capacity of the Defender is greater, as you'd expect, than its capacity to haul equipped troops. That's usually the case with COTS stuff

Although there is no photo of the ULCV configuration (to my knowledge), I simply stated it completed the PPD as mentioned by the manufacturer in a press release and verified here:

"The Army last summer held a demonstration at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, home of the 82nd Airborne Corps, in which six companies showed vehicles: GD's Flyer; the Boeing-MSI Defense Phantom Badger; Polaris Defense's deployable advanced ground off-road DAGOR; Hendrick Dynamics' Commando Jeep; Vyper Adamas' Vyper; and Lockheed Martin's High Versatility Tactical Vehicle, which is a version of the UK Army's HMT-400 Jackal." (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/01/15/armys-ultralight-vehicles/21768987/) Wheeler2014 8:10, 17 January 2015

"Showed vehicles." Quite literally. Why not find something that states the vehicles capacity that isn't straight out of a press release?Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see a basis for declaring it does not meet some ULCV specs. Wheeler2014 (talk) 8:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And I do, especially given the sales-brochure appearance of your article.Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Follow the reference links."

(talk) I have followed the reference links, they are recirculated press release info, basically, and provide no hard data on the vehicle's performance. This article is essentially advertizing. Anmccaff (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed dubious and edited text, per Anmccaff, although not sure why the mobility is doubted given the testing performed ("...fuel, demonstrating high mobility, and..." http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/maneuverconference/ReadAhead/MRD/MRDULCVinfopaper13%20August.pdf); and design intent with numerous sources showing the vehicle, Commando specifically not Wrangler, is only available to government and military customers and further deployed with US forces. Wheeler2014 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The link above says nothing about any particular vehicle, merely that the vehicles tested showed the concept was viable. They could have all passed, some of them could have passed, they could, indeed, have all flunked, but shown that they got close enough that further development was was possible. Next, as mentioned before, the thing starts out as a Wrangler. There's only so far it can go from its roots before it ceases to be COTS. Describing it as developed for tactical use is simply wrong, although "modified for" might not be. Anmccaff (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)