User talk:DB Explorer

Welcome!

Hello, DB Explorer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from M8 Armored Gun System into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M8 Armored Gun System

I think there is some confusion over what vehicles are being considered for the air-droppable protected firepower platform. The stories released late last year said the Army was "considering" an airborne light tank to support Infantry Brigades. I believe their naming of the M8 Armored Gun System (and Stryker Mobile Gun System) was speculation rather than as actual decided contenders (they do say "One option could be to take another look at the Armored Gun System"). When the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle sources sought notice was released earlier this year, it called for a vehicle that could be carried under a Black Hawk, carried inside of a Chinook, mount a "medium caliber" weapon, and hold a full nine-man squad. Those specifications are official (or officially desired), so I think when they actually drew up requirements they stopped thinking in terms of a light tank, so the M8 could not be in the running as it doesn't meet any of those criteria, and does not need any of this information on its page. Also, the ULCV is the only news of an Army effort for an air-dropped armored vehicle, so I don't think there would be two separate programs, one for an air-dropped tank and another for an air-dropped armored truck. America789 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles referencing the M8 Armored Gun System and the Stryker Mobile Gun System are clearly about a light tank while the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle are about a truck - clearly they would be separate programs given how radically different they are. Also I can not find any sources stating that the ULCV is what became of the Stryker MGS and M8 evaluation and thus believed that keeping the information on the M8 page would be useful as removing it under the assumption that the ULCV is what is being looked at instead would at this time a reference-less assumption. I am and was merely erring on the side of caution as the information on the evaluation was on the page before the ULCV information was added and had been for quite some time with no issues. --DB Explorer (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link about the MPF and ULCV [1]. Turns out we were both sort of right. The mobile protected firepower is indeed looking for a light tank. ULCV is looking for a troop carrier. They are different vehicles, but both part of the same effort to create several airborne vehicles. Now that has been clearly spelled out. America789 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]