Jump to content

Talk:Stryker: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
BD2412bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
724,684 edits
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,489,067 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject United States}}.
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{afd-merged-from|Stryker vehicle controversy|Stryker vehicle controversy|06 October 2010}}
{{afd-merged-from|Stryker vehicle controversy|Stryker vehicle controversy|06 October 2010}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=start
{{WikiProject Military history|class=start
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=no <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-2=yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4=yes <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|US-task-force=yes|Weaponry-task-force=yes|Land-vehicles-task-force=yes
|US-task-force=yes|Weaponry-task-force=yes|Land-vehicles-task-force=yes
}}
}}
Line 18: Line 13:
}}
}}


== Infantry units are not "support" units ==
== [[Stryker#Comparison_with_contemporary_vehicles|Vehicle comparison chart]] ==
In this article there are several instances where the word "support" is used. Infantrymen are never considered a support unit. They are the main battle unit. Artillery units are considered "support". The word support in a military context means to support another unit. Yes, IFV's mutually support the members of their unit but that is not considered "support" because they are in the same unit. Also, from personal experience to ever call an Infantryman "support" is considered an insult. Can you please edit and remove that word. [[User:Solri89|Solri89]] ([[User talk:Solri89|talk]]) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In the [[Stryker#Comparison_with_contemporary_vehicles|chart comparing other such vehicles]], the vehicle used for Canada seems inappropriate. Instead of the [[LAV-25]], should the comparator not be the [[LAV-III]]? Thanks! — '''[[User:SpikeToronto|<font color="#DC143C" face="Garamond" size="3">Spike</font>]][[User talk:SpikeToronto|<font color="#000000" face="Garamond" size="3">Toronto</font>]]''' 06:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


: Just change 'support' to a more fitting word then, e.g. [[WP:FIXIT]]. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Who deleted the vehicle comparison chart? You can hardly say that is criticism! It's censorship and sleight of hand! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.255.1.94|220.255.1.94]] ([[User talk:220.255.1.94|talk]]) 02:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== C4I ==
== Double-V variants rollouts ==
When I was in it was C3I. When did they add computers? [[User:Solri89|Solri89]] ([[User talk:Solri89|talk]]) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth noting when the various variants switch over to the double-V hull?


==IAV==
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/07/mil-120716-arnews03.htm
It might be self-explanatory for the military experts, but the abbreviation "IAV" is not explained anywhere in the article. For clarification it should be fully written out at least once in either the introduction or the table on the right. --[[Special:Contributions/89.0.161.210|89.0.161.210]] ([[User talk:89.0.161.210|talk]]) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
APMI will be fired from the Army's new Stryker Double-V Hull Mortar Carrier Vehicle, or MCVV.
:IAV is for Interim Armored Vehicle. I've added that at the first mention. ([[User:Hohum|<span style="color:Green;">'''Hohum'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Hohum|<span style="color:Red;"><sup>@</sup></span>]]) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


== Stryker and LIBA ==
etc. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 13:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Moft Elizon claims to provide LIBA armor plating for Strykers. Yet I don't see any listing of them here. Any other sources, or...


[[User:SkynetPR|SkynetPR]] ([[User talk:SkynetPR|talk]]) 02:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
== Congratulations to GDLS and their paid wiki-editors ==
You succeeded in banning all criticism from the article. It now is basically a sales promotion brochure, not an encyclopedic article. You even deleted most, if not all of my posts from the discussion section. Good job - GDLS gets real value for their investment in you. And I won't even bother trying to contribute here ... just a hint: You might want to include some minor, irrelevant criticism, which can easily be refuted (i.e. strawman arguments), just to make it look "fair and balanced" to the unsuspecting reader. Regards, ... -- [[User:Alexey Topol|Alexey Topol]] ([[User talk:Alexey Topol|talk]]) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:You have made [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Talk:Stryker 22] edits to this talk page in the last few years. As far as I can see, they are all still here. Sarcastic invective will certainly get you nowhere. ([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Hohum|<font color="Red"><sup>@</sup></font>]]) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


== Is this the primary topic? ==
== "MGS" likely an error in the Info Box ==
Is this vehicle really the primary topic for "Stryker"? I was surprised when I landed here while looking for the Fortune 500 company -- I expected to land either at the article about the company (which I thought might have been the primary topic) or at [[Stryker (disambiguation)]]. When I google "Stryker", the topmost search result and most of the first-page results concern the company, which lends weight to the hypothesis that the company is the primary topic. Perhaps this article should be renamed something like [[Stryker (vehicle)]] and [[Stryker]] should become a redirect to the dab? [[User:Lambtron|Lambtron]] ([[User talk:Lambtron|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


In the upper right "Info" Box (with the picture), under the heading: Secondary armament, it lists the M240 machine gun – for which a proper WIKI link takes you to that MG which is a weapon that would be an appropriate secondary armament. However, immediately following, and without a comma or any other explanation, it says: '''(MGS)''', which also is a link, but to a different WIKI page.
:Funny, I was looking for Stryker as a vehicle, not the company that made it, which is General Dynamics Land Systems. If I wanted to look up GDLS, I'd search for DGLS, not one of their products. They do make other products besides this single system. But then, I was looking up a vehicle I operated and rode in, as the occasion demanded. I only happened to come here after finding a chunk of the ceramic armor in my things when I was going through them today and was curious about what the article looks like today.[[User:Wzrd1|Wzrd1]] ([[User talk:Wzrd1|talk]]) 20:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::I think Lambtron's statement confused you, [[User:Wzrd1|Wzrd1]]. "The Fortune 500 company" Lambtron is talking about is [[Stryker Corporation]], not GDLS. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 07:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
:I think there is a case to be made that neither is primary. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 07:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I always think of the Stryker Corporation as just that. I've also used Stryker products in the military. Interestingly though, never in a Stryker vehicle, as Stryker corporation products don't lend themselves as well to military tactical usage.[[User:Wzrd1|Wzrd1]] ([[User talk:Wzrd1|talk]]) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


This links to the: [[M1128 Mobile Gun System]], which is in the [[Stryker]] family of vehicles, but is a completely different vehicle. It would certainly NOT be considered a "secondary weapon"!
== Proposed move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''


Is it possible that what was intended was that the M240 would be mounted in the same "Protector", which links to the [[Protector (RWS)]] remote firing system as mentioned immediately above under the heading: Main armament? When you look under the [[Stryker#Armament]] section, they list the [[Protector M151]], (which links to the same WIKI page as the [[Protector (RWS)]]) as the dedicated remote firing system for all medium weapons on top of this vehicle, including the lighter M240.
'''No consensus to move'''. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


By the bye,
[[:Stryker]] → {{no redirect|Stryker (vehicle)}} – Not the [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topic]]. [[Stryker]] should be a disambiguation page. Google Alerts: Stryker Corp, [http://online.wsj.com/article/HUG1729767.djm.html] [http://www.northforkvue.com/finance/1973/stryker-corp-director-ronda-stryker-unloads-14000-shares-syk/] [http://www.newsday.com/business/stryker-hip-recall-lawyers-at-wright-schulte-llc-report-on-first-status-conference-in-federal-stryker-rejuvenate-hip-replacement-lawsuits-1.6079734] [http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/18/is-stryker-destined-for-greatness/] [http://tickerreport.com/banking-finance/14973/stryker-corp-director-sells-1002820-in-stock-syk/] [http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/09/stryker_corp_ceo_kevin_lobo_to.html] [http://www.newsday.com/business/stryker-hip-lawsuits-continue-to-mount-as-claims-in-new-jersey-stryker-hip-recall-litigation-approach-400-bernstein-liebhard-llp-reports-1.6091607] [http://www.northforkvue.com/finance/3537/insider-selling-stryker-corp-director-sells-14000-shares-of-stock-syk/]; Stryker vehicle [http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/09/15/2786373/lakewood-to-stryker-brigade-you.html] [http://www.dvidshub.net/news/113803/raiders-return-celebration-welcomes-back-stryker-brigade]. Though to be fair, those last two were only about [[Stryker Brigade Combat Team]]s. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


1) In the Info Box, just after "Protector", it lists '''remote weapon station''' which links to a more general WIKI page titled: [[Remote controlled weapon station]]. This doesn't harm anything, but making the original: [[Protector (RWS)]], then leaving ''remote weapon station'' as an added link to a general discussion of this type of hardware, might be more appropriate?
* Agree. Per discussion immediately above this section. A redirect as proposed and Stryker alone going to a disambiguation page would be appropriate for the reasons discussed previously.[[User:Wzrd1|Wzrd1]] ([[User talk:Wzrd1|talk]]) 02:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
* Per [[WP:MALPLACED]], a title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. I would '''support''' moving the disambiguation page to [[Stryker]] based on the lack of a clear primary topic. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The company is at [[Stryker Corporation]] and doesn't require this lemma. [[Special:Contributions/64.129.10.105|64.129.10.105]] ([[User talk:64.129.10.105|talk]]) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
::Well, that prevents many misdirected clicks for those looking for the vehicle and not the company, but not for people looking for the company. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I think almost anyone typing "Stryker" expects to get to the vehicle. Page view stats show about 1,000 hits per day to the current Stryker page and 20-30 per day to the disambig page. ([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Hohum|<font color="Red"><sup>@</sup></font>]]) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::That illustrates the problem of accessibility I perceive with hatnotes but nothing else. If you were to make Stryker a dab page, eliminate all incoming misdirected wikilinks and pipe both links to <nowiki>[[FOOStryker (vehicle)]] and [[BARStryker Corporation]],</nowiki> you would see that both FOO and BAR would get a comparable amount of views. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 06:16, 2- September 2013 (UTC)


2) In the section under '''Armament''', you might want to change Protector M151 to [[Protector (RWS)]]. This is because when you read the WIKI page on the [[Protector (RWS)#Versions]], it mentions that '''(RWS)''' is for the entire system while the M151 variant is that for the Stryker vehicles. The current listing (in brackets) is: "Protector (RWS)|Protector M151", but I think that a more appropriate listing would be: "Protector (RWS)#M151 versions|Protector (RWS)".
:::Marcus, on what evidential basis are you suggesting that FOO and BAR would get comparable amounts of views? The company page only averages to about 140 hits per day, which is far below the 1000 average for this page. Perhaps we could put a direct hatnote link to the company page on this article to see if that would improve traffic over a 90-day period? - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 06:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::::The Stryker Corp. page isn't as high quality so it isn't currently getting a ton of hits from search. Also, for some additional context the program cost for the Stryker program over the last decade has been something like $7.5 billion. Stryker Corporation's annual revenue alone is $8.657 billion. Take want you want from that. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::I don't take much from that, to be honest. As far as WP readers go, they seem to be more interested in the vehicle than a company most seem to have never heard of nor care about, no matter its annual revenue. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 19:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::The vehicle got [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Stryker 90,000] page views in the last 90 days. The company got [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Stryker_Corporation 16,000]. If you think it's because the article is poorly written, you can improve it. That has nothing to do with this discussion. If the company gets significantly fewer page views, it's not primary. Period. Revenue figures have nothing to do with it. [[Special:Contributions/64.129.10.105|64.129.10.105]] ([[User talk:64.129.10.105|talk]]) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Page views are often the worst determiner of primary topic. If that was the say-all, end-all, [[Magneto|the comic book character]] would be primary to [[Magneto]]. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 20:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' to move this article to Stryker (vehicle) (or Stryker vehicle). The vehicle seems to be more well known, but internet searches for Stryker with 4 different search engines show slightly more hits for the corporation. Based on the searches, the Stryker vehicle is probably not the clear-cut primary topic. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Your call...
*'''Weak Oppose''' to move this article at this point. I've seen no evidence from the page traffic numbers that WP readers are searching for the company to any sigbificant degree. At this point, I'd say to close this as No consensus to move, and come back in 4-6 months. In the meantime, I'll add a specific hatnote to this article to see if the traffic numbers to the company imprve to a significant degree over that period. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 19:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Stryker should be a disambiguation page. I know of Stryker as a medical equipment supplier. They're not a small company; they're in the [[S&P 500]]. I'm not going to analyze pageviews or Google, just going on personal knowledge. I'd never heard of the armored fighting vehicle until I saw this RM. Honest. We also may have something of a minor case of [[WP:Recentism]]. The company's been around since 1941, the military hardware just over a decade. – [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


All the best,
== Versus tanks ==


James
"The Stryker was designed to be deployable for light infantry units, not made to handle heavy armored combat. In a defensive action, vehicles moved to high ground where soldiers and vehicles with anti-tank missiles managed to defeat two-thirds of an enemy force of 90 vehicles while suffering losses of less than one-third of brigade vehicles. In an offensive action, the brigade lost a cavalry squadron when attacking fortified enemy positions, but still won the battle exercise"
[[Special:Contributions/202.44.197.50|202.44.197.50]] ([[User talk:202.44.197.50|talk]]) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


== Merge? ==
Apart from being completely biased and pro American, the counterpoint is the tanks versus infantry debate is still going on, and this section seems to imply it's completely decided; all by some military exercise. It doesn't even say anything about the capabilities or details of the vehicle, just summarizes the results of an exercise, the details of which are unknown. It doesn't add anything to the article, just tries to influence the reader's opinion.


As [[User:Reidgreg]] suggested at [[Talk:M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle#Requested move 4 May 2022]], it may be a good idea to merge some of the Stryker variant articles. Namely [[M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle]], [[M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle]], [[M1130 Commander's Vehicle]], [[M1131 Fire Support Vehicle]], [[M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Reconnaissance Vehicle]] and [[M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle]]. I would probably leave [[M1128 Mobile Gun System]], [[M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle]], [[M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle]] and [[M1129 Mortar Carrier]] alone. [[M1296 Dragoon]] and Stryker SHORAD would be good candidates to spin off at some point. A parent article called [[Stryker variants]] could be created to contain the merged articles.[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=all-time&pages=M1129_Mortar_Carrier|M1128_Mobile_Gun_System|M1127_Reconnaissance_Vehicle|M1126_Infantry_Carrier_Vehicle|M1130_Commander%27s_Vehicle|M1131_Fire_Support_Vehicle|M1132_Engineer_Squad_Vehicle|M1133_Medical_Evacuation_Vehicle|M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle|M1135_Nuclear,_Biological,_Chemical,_Reconnaissance_Vehicle Page views]. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 03:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if this is propaganda or advertising for General Dynamics, but regardless it doesn't belong in a place which is supposed to contain information as accurate as can be attained. [[User:Ancholm|Ancholm]] ([[User talk:Ancholm|talk]]) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:The text was not biased or pro-American, it was just telling of what happened in a military exercise where Strykers went up against conventional opposing forces. It does not say the tanks versus infantry debate is decided by an exercise, just that this one showed infantry from Strykers were capable of defeating armored forces under certain circumstances. It talked about the capabilities of the Stryker, that it was not made for this type of combat, and other details concerning that point can be found in the other parts of this page. Also, just because the source article is Stars and Stripes does not mean it is "America biased," that was just where the story was written. It was about an American combat vehicle in a training exercise, so I don't see how else other information could have been added, or would even be relevant. [[User:America789|America789]] ([[User talk:America789|talk]]) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

::None of it is relevant. The article speaks of it like a historical event, like you would find on the article concerning cannons and their use at Waterloo. However this was not a historical event of any note, just a standard training exercise. If you had used the term "Under certain circumstances," I probably wouldn't be raising this kind of fuss. It doesn't include any details of the Stryker specifically, if anything it would be more appropriate under the article for mechanized infantry. I shall reinclude the information, but as a sentence recognizing the event and it's implications, and not as an equally verbose and uninformative paragraph.
::On the other point, would you expect a paper called "[[Krasnaya Zvezda|Red Star]]" to be fair and impartial? No, it would be biased and pandering; just like stripes, just like military.com. I wouldn't even mind you using pro-American sources purely for information, but the bias carries over. [[User:Ancholm|Ancholm]] ([[User talk:Ancholm|talk]]) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::It is relevant because it talks of the vehicle's mission. It's mission is to be a lightly armored air-mobile APC, and this showed it was capable of being useful in situations it was not originally made to be in. The article does talk about the Stryker specifically, in fact the entire article is based on it. You could rewrite it shorter and just say "A training exercise showed the Stryker could be used in conventional warfare situations and this was the result" or something, but I think a mention of some kind is needed. Also, if you don't like the site, the story can be found [http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/02/17/3051951/stryker-crews-find-ways-to-defeat.html here]. [[User:America789|America789]] ([[User talk:America789|talk]]) 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much for posting that last link it was very informative, and a much better telling of the story than the first article in terms of writing quality and depth. However reading the comments; American military officers are calling the article propaganda. If ''they're'' calling the entire story unreliable, would you agree it probably is? [[User:Ancholm|Ancholm]] ([[User talk:Ancholm|talk]]) 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::In every military-related article there are always some commenters that try to denounce or discredit whatever is written; that is not the way to judge quality. I'm not understanding how the story can be called propaganda or biased. It is about an American combat vehicle in an exercise. It doesn't say the opposing force was supposed to be another specific country's army or what specific vehicles the opposition were trying to seem like. The story is obviously going to about the U.S., because there is no one else to talk about; it can't be slanted if there is not another side being neglected. All it is saying is that in an exercise the Stryker proved somewhat successful in a role it was not initially intended to be in. Surely that can be stated plainly in this page. [[User:America789|America789]] ([[User talk:America789|talk]]) 01:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==

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 [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|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 [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|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 [[meta:Talk:Spam Blacklist|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:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\barmy-technology\.com\b</code> 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.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberbot II]] [[User talk:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:arnprior">Notify]]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

{{done|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]] [[User talk:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Notify]]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

== Unit cost ==

The unit cost still says 4 odd mil. That's more than a T90. It's also more than a LAV III, which the stryker is a stripped down version of. Either that figure is inaccurate or the corruption in the American military-industrial complex has reached impressive proportions. There's strong evidence for both, but I believe the number is off. [[User:Ancholm|Ancholm]] ([[User talk:Ancholm|talk]]) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

*Actually, it in the standard price range for the US. MRAPs were $0.5 million before any electronics or computers, and GCV was supposed to be over $10 million. Also, I not sure, but the vehicles bought in 2012 could have been NBCRVs. Those are probably one of the more expensive variants. In addition, be careful with the T90 costs. Which T90? How much electronics? Are you buying new or upgrading a T-72? There are many ways to hide costs.[[User:Vstr|Vstr]] ([[User talk:Vstr|talk]]) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

== Fighting Vehicle ==

The stryker is not a fighting vehicle. It lacks the armor and staying power. It is designed to only provide support by fire. [[User:DocHellfish|DocHellfish]] ([[User talk:DocHellfish|talk]]) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
:[[armored fighting vehicle]] is a generous term that includes many vehicles including armored personel carriers, and engineering vehicles without any significant form of offense/defence beyond a machine gun. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::Indeed, perhaps it is an Americanism. Fighting Vehicles, such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, are called such because they are designed to engage in the fight directly. Strykers are only rated to provide fire support due to their lack of staying power. In a conventional war, they would be sliced to ribbons in the field thus are for urban warfare. [[User:DocHellfish|DocHellfish]] ([[User talk:DocHellfish|talk]]) 07:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

== Infantry units are not "support" units ==

In this article there are several instances where the word "support" is used. Infantrymen are never considered a support unit. They are the main battle unit. Artillery units are considered "support". The word support in a military context means to support another unit. Yes, IFV's mutually support the members of their unit but that is not considered "support" because they are in the same unit. Also, from personal experience to ever call an Infantryman "support" is considered an insult. Can you please edit and remove that word. [[User:Solri89|Solri89]] ([[User talk:Solri89|talk]]) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

: Just change 'support' to a more fitting word then, e.g. [[WP:FIXIT]]. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

== C4I ==

When I was in it was C3I. When did they add computers? [[User:Solri89|Solri89]] ([[User talk:Solri89|talk]]) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

==IAV==

It might be self-explanatory for the military experts, but the abbreviation "IAV" is not explained anywhere in the article. For clarification it should be fully written out at least once in either the introduction or the table on the right. --[[Special:Contributions/89.0.161.210|89.0.161.210]] ([[User talk:89.0.161.210|talk]]) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:IAV is for Interim Armored Vehicle. I've added that at the first mention. ([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Hohum|<font color="Red"><sup>@</sup></font>]]) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:08, 27 February 2024

Infantry units are not "support" units

[edit]

In this article there are several instances where the word "support" is used. Infantrymen are never considered a support unit. They are the main battle unit. Artillery units are considered "support". The word support in a military context means to support another unit. Yes, IFV's mutually support the members of their unit but that is not considered "support" because they are in the same unit. Also, from personal experience to ever call an Infantryman "support" is considered an insult. Can you please edit and remove that word. Solri89 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just change 'support' to a more fitting word then, e.g. WP:FIXIT. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C4I

[edit]

When I was in it was C3I. When did they add computers? Solri89 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAV

[edit]

It might be self-explanatory for the military experts, but the abbreviation "IAV" is not explained anywhere in the article. For clarification it should be fully written out at least once in either the introduction or the table on the right. --89.0.161.210 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAV is for Interim Armored Vehicle. I've added that at the first mention. (Hohum @) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker and LIBA

[edit]

Moft Elizon claims to provide LIBA armor plating for Strykers. Yet I don't see any listing of them here. Any other sources, or...

SkynetPR (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"MGS" likely an error in the Info Box

[edit]

In the upper right "Info" Box (with the picture), under the heading: Secondary armament, it lists the M240 machine gun – for which a proper WIKI link takes you to that MG which is a weapon that would be an appropriate secondary armament. However, immediately following, and without a comma or any other explanation, it says: (MGS), which also is a link, but to a different WIKI page.

This links to the: M1128 Mobile Gun System, which is in the Stryker family of vehicles, but is a completely different vehicle. It would certainly NOT be considered a "secondary weapon"!

Is it possible that what was intended was that the M240 would be mounted in the same "Protector", which links to the Protector (RWS) remote firing system as mentioned immediately above under the heading: Main armament? When you look under the Stryker#Armament section, they list the Protector M151, (which links to the same WIKI page as the Protector (RWS)) as the dedicated remote firing system for all medium weapons on top of this vehicle, including the lighter M240.

By the bye,

1) In the Info Box, just after "Protector", it lists remote weapon station which links to a more general WIKI page titled: Remote controlled weapon station. This doesn't harm anything, but making the original: Protector (RWS), then leaving remote weapon station as an added link to a general discussion of this type of hardware, might be more appropriate?

2) In the section under Armament, you might want to change Protector M151 to Protector (RWS). This is because when you read the WIKI page on the Protector (RWS)#Versions, it mentions that (RWS) is for the entire system while the M151 variant is that for the Stryker vehicles. The current listing (in brackets) is: "Protector (RWS)|Protector M151", but I think that a more appropriate listing would be: "Protector (RWS)#M151 versions|Protector (RWS)".

Your call...


All the best,

James 202.44.197.50 (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

As User:Reidgreg suggested at Talk:M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle#Requested move 4 May 2022, it may be a good idea to merge some of the Stryker variant articles. Namely M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle, M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle, M1130 Commander's Vehicle, M1131 Fire Support Vehicle, M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Reconnaissance Vehicle and M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle. I would probably leave M1128 Mobile Gun System, M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle, M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle and M1129 Mortar Carrier alone. M1296 Dragoon and Stryker SHORAD would be good candidates to spin off at some point. A parent article called Stryker variants could be created to contain the merged articles.Page views. Schierbecker (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stryker&oldid=1210572768"