Talk:M577 A.P.C./Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about M577 A.P.C.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Any idea where the full sized vehicle from the film ended up?
Is it still located in the UK? In the hands of a private collector or on public display? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.18.132 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Real vehicle vs. fictional vehicle
The M557 armored personel carrier is NOT a fictional vehicle. As usual, a non-expert, non-vetran, non-authority is posting on wikipedia. As an Army Intelligence NCO, I spent long untold hours in an REAL M577APC. Search the rest of the internet for confirmation & STOP USING WIKIPEDIA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.77.46 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- A pointer to the M113 variants page has been added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.18.132 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- This one is referring to the fictional one, and the image clearly indicates it's not the tracked 577 used for FDC or whatever REMF use since Vietnam. As an old Army NCO myself, allow me to correct your attitude. It's very unbecoming and unprofessional. This vehicle is ingrained in the public consciousness. There should be a disambiguation, but this is a valid article entry. --75.13.86.109 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Grammar
The correct abbreviation for armored personnel carrier is APC not "A.P.C" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's your basis for that claim? I think that usual punctuation rules call for periods between letters in acronyms, though the real-world practice is inconsistent. Some people use periods, some don't. See Acronym and initialism#Orthographic styling. Here's a good rationale for keeping the periods:
The New York Times' guide recommends separating each segment with a period when the letters are pronounced individually, as in K.G.B., but not when pronounced as a word, as in NATO.[1] The logic of this style is that the pronunciation is reflected graphically by the punctuation scheme.