Talk:List of land vehicles of the United States Armed Forces

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

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

Untitled

Shouldn't airplanes and helicopters and the like be included under the heading "vehicles"?

Well that was not why I started the list. So no. If this is an issue in terms of language then I would recommend renaming the article to land vehicles of the US Armed Forces. -- Thatguy96 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to categorize: Operational Use vs. Designed Use

I just saw that one of my favorite vehicles (the M42 Duster) was missing, so I added it. Specifically, I added it under the Anti-aircraft self-propelled guns, as the Duster was, indeed, designed as a SPAAG. However, it was most famously used for heavy ground-fire support in the Vietnam war. This leads me to a question: Should vehicles be categorized under their designed use, or their operational use?

- I, for one, would not object to adding "land" to the title. Yes, it's pendantic, but aircraft, boats, et al, are "vehicles." (Though, I suspect no one would be confused about this.) Reimelt 18:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say designed use. The operation use should be covered in the relevant article. I am also going to change the name. - Thatguy96 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stryker light tank?

is the stryker MGS considered a tank? QZX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.244.229.225 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From the Wikipedia article Tank "A tank is a tracked armoured combat vehicle designed to engage enemies head-on, using direct fire from a large-calibre gun and supporting fire from machine guns. Heavy armour as well as a high degree of mobility give it survivability, while the tracks allow it to cross even rough terrain at high speeds." As the Stryker is a wheeled vehicle without heavy armor, I would have to say no. It does meet the requirements for a mobile gun system, hence its nomenclature. Zharmad (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that it isn't removed then? Sean0987 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Sean0987[reply]

dragon fire

Is dragon fire a mortar or a vehicle? On the dragon fires article it says it can be towed by a HMMWV or mounted on a LAV which would make it sound like its not a vehicle. If no one disagrees I'll remove it from the list. Sean0987 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Sean0987[reply]

something's wrong...

This list is screwed up, many of the vehicles have been removed and the categories have been mixed, and when I tried to revert it back to it's previous form, someone accused me of vandalism, (I know I did poorly but I'm not good at this) Could someone who knows better fix this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.142.213 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the list be reverted to this version? The current list sticks a whole bunch of light recon vehicles under the MBT category. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list purpose?

list seems redundant, theres already an M-list, unless its purpose is to recatagorize the M-list into tanks, trucks, apc's, trailers, ect.Brian in denver (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]