This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the production numbers for the M4A3 are incorrect. I've seen the number 49.000 for M4s produced during the war, and that includes all models of the M4, not just M4A3. -- Jniemenmaa
How should we disambiguate United States tanks? For example, the M1 could refer to either the modern M1 Abrams or the pre-WWII M1. -- Carnildo 08:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've moved the page to a List of AFV's so that other vehicles can be included. I'll further break it up into sections as I add more items. Oberiko 16:18, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So, how come Katyusha should be classed as a AFV? It's neither armoured or a vehicle... :) Ok, I agree some MLRS could probably be classed as AFVs, but since the Katyusha is usually mounted on a ZIL truck I think it should not be classed as one. -- Jniemenmaa 07:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC).
The AFVs are divided according to countries, should the list of AFVs of country someland should include only AFVs developed and manufactured by it? Or can it also include an AFVs purchased from other countries? MathKnight 17:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tanks is not tanks, well they are but the Scorpion has never been a tank. Its made of aluminium with a low pressure gun. I'm putting it back under others.
GDL 3 Feb 2004
Rather than argue the point too much, I clarified the UK listing of tanks as Main Battle Tanks. GDL
May I suggest that we make this page a "list of lists" and then have seperate lists for nationality, type, and era? (Eras being those used on Category:Military equipment) Oberiko 22:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really that big yet surely? Yes to plit off the Pre-WW2 and post-ww2 in the same manner as the WW2 but don't bother splitting it down any further. GraemeLeggett 08:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of duplication here. I've already proposed merging a few obvious lists on the respective pages.
We should agree on a coordinated scheme for reducing the number of lists here. Instead of a bunch of separate lists, the same information can be represented using subheadings or annotations. But what makes the most sense?
List of artillery is a universal series of lists by type, sorted by calibre, annotated with country and period. (Number produced could also be added.) Is this a good starting point for AFVs?
Keep in mind that country of origin is different from countries of employment. — Michael Z. 2007-08-16 06:10 Z
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the production numbers for the M4A3 are incorrect. I've seen the number 49.000 for M4s produced during the war, and that includes all models of the M4, not just M4A3. -- Jniemenmaa
How should we disambiguate United States tanks? For example, the M1 could refer to either the modern M1 Abrams or the pre-WWII M1. -- Carnildo 08:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've moved the page to a List of AFV's so that other vehicles can be included. I'll further break it up into sections as I add more items. Oberiko 16:18, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So, how come Katyusha should be classed as a AFV? It's neither armoured or a vehicle... :) Ok, I agree some MLRS could probably be classed as AFVs, but since the Katyusha is usually mounted on a ZIL truck I think it should not be classed as one. -- Jniemenmaa 07:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC).
The AFVs are divided according to countries, should the list of AFVs of country someland should include only AFVs developed and manufactured by it? Or can it also include an AFVs purchased from other countries? MathKnight 17:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tanks is not tanks, well they are but the Scorpion has never been a tank. Its made of aluminium with a low pressure gun. I'm putting it back under others.
GDL 3 Feb 2004
Rather than argue the point too much, I clarified the UK listing of tanks as Main Battle Tanks. GDL
May I suggest that we make this page a "list of lists" and then have seperate lists for nationality, type, and era? (Eras being those used on Category:Military equipment) Oberiko 22:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really that big yet surely? Yes to plit off the Pre-WW2 and post-ww2 in the same manner as the WW2 but don't bother splitting it down any further. GraemeLeggett 08:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of duplication here. I've already proposed merging a few obvious lists on the respective pages.
We should agree on a coordinated scheme for reducing the number of lists here. Instead of a bunch of separate lists, the same information can be represented using subheadings or annotations. But what makes the most sense?
List of artillery is a universal series of lists by type, sorted by calibre, annotated with country and period. (Number produced could also be added.) Is this a good starting point for AFVs?
Keep in mind that country of origin is different from countries of employment. — Michael Z. 2007-08-16 06:10 Z