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

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)

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)
 * 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)

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).


 * 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)

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

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

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)


 * 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)

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)