Talk:M1128 mobile gun system

Stryker MGS not transportable by C130
Uh, the Stryker MGS is not -repeat not- transportable by C130. Its weight of 41,000lbs puts it at just a little too heavy to br carried by a Herc. -69.228.43.9 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually a Herc can carry it, just barely. It requires that some parts be removed however. AllStarZ 20:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that it is the height of Piranha derivatives other than the MG-armed Stryker prevents them from driving off a Hercules and straight into battle -- not their weight. My understanding is that the disassembly they require is to reduce the height.  And that the removed pieces travel in the same plane.

Stryker mobile gun system
The Stryker mobile gun system page should be merged into this page. Dudtz 8/3/06 4:26 PM EST


 * I've redirected it. I don't think it contained any new information that isn't covered here or in Stryker.  —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 20:49 Z 

Okay. Dudtz 8/4/06 3:02 PM EST

Cancelled?
"List of Vehicles" says it's in active service, but other sources say it's cancelled. Can someone update me on that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.16.54.240 (talk • contribs) 02:10, September 20, 2006 (UTC).
 * If those other sources happen to be sites that refer to the M113 as the "Gavin", I'd take most things they write about the Stryker with a grain of salt. =) Here's an article from the Army's own website about a unit from the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division receiving their Stryker Mobile Gun Systems. --Edward Sandstig 18:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been talk that the Canadians may cancel their MGS purchases. The original order was placed by the government under the previous ruling party. With the control switch over to a party with a perceived more pro-military stance, some generals in the Canadian Army are trying to convince the new government to cancel the MGS (which is not a tank) and keep the Canadian Leopard C2 (which is a tank based on the German Leopard 1 and not the Leopard 2). These actions have spurred further online speculation, like the Canadians following the Austrailian lead and buy up M1A1 tanks. HOWEVER, there still has been no notification of an actual cancellation. There's just talk. Vstr 05:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact the Leopard C2s were being liquidated in view of the intended adoption of the MGS, but that was halted, with about half of the tanks still in service. Now a squadron will be sent to Afghanistan.  I don't know of any official announcements, but nothing is being said about plans for adopting the MGS. —Michael Z. 2006-09-24 16:46 Z 


 * It's a done deal - the MGS is dead in Canada - but I can't find a specific source for it, just was told by the project managers while hanging out at the Armour School in Gagetown last year.


 * In the interests of completeness I'll add that Canada eventually ordered approximately 100 surplus Dutch Leopard 2 tanks, larger, newer, more heavily armed and armored than the early Leopards, which were variants of the Leopard 1. The new tanks will come with air-conditioning -- apparently almost essential in Afghanistan during the summer.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Images?
Can someone explain why the pictures were removed? -- Geo Swan 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit on M102 cannon. I am changing the M102 cannon reference. The MGS uses a variant of the M68 105mm gun, not the M102 howitzer, which is traditionally an indirect fire artillery piece (except on the AC-130, a most unique application).

- I've got some new images of us out in Afghanistan with MGS's. I just joined Wikipedia. My pictures are M1128 with the belly armor upgrade, slat armor, and finally the DEK (drivers improvement kit) installed. Other than that, these are the best pictures of an MGS firing. Far better than any others available on the net.

Contact me and let me know how we can improve this site. - iuventius_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuventuis 1 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

appropriate use of tags
Someone put a {copyvio} on this page. I believe it is inappropriate. WP:COPYVIO tells editors who think they detect a copyright violation to see whether they  can wind the article back to a time before the copyrighted material was added. I started this article. I started it from scratch, so, I know this is possible.

The person who added the tag didn't complete the copyvio procedure. Otherwise I would add this note on the copyvio forum.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem, someone say that the text posted was a duplicate, without bothering to check the references first. Everything is properly cited (but the article is definitely not unique to wikipedia). While not plagiarism in the sense that they pretend it's theirs, it's certainly copyvio because they copied word for word the content of that website, regardless of whether or not its properly cited. // 3R1C 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to G7 Howitzer
Is this the system described in the G7 howitzer article? If so, shouldn't there be some mention of the G7 in the article? Also, if it is mounting a 105mm howitzer gun stock, is it really intended to function in the same way as a battle tank, or is its role intended to be that of mobile artillery? -Kieran 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not. The MGS uses a Tank-type High velocity 105MM Gun rather than a howitzer, the MGS's role is to provide mobile direct fire support rather than either the indirect fire Role the G7 fills, or the modern MBT role, in effect the MGS's role is somewhere between the two. The useless one 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to GlobalSecurity.org, there is a 105mm howitzer-armed variant of the Stryker in the works. From the Denel Land Systems website (makers of the G7), here it will be armed with the T7. Would this variant be worthy of a seperate page, since the "MXXXX Self-propelled 105 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer (SPH)" article links here? Tr1290 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tank?
Th list of vehicles of the US armed forces lists the MGS as a light tank. Could someone verify this? QZXA2 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

mobile gun system truths
as a mobile gun system platoon sergeant there are so many myths about the vehicle such as it will flip over if fired from the side or it is not c-130 transportable. if you have questions and want the facts about this vehicle you can email me or just reply. i have had this vehicle in combat for 15 months and it has proven its weight in gold email: tanker_legend@yahoo.com you can also see videos of it in action at www.youtube.com/tankcommander33

Move
There is a proposal here to move this article to M1128 mobile gun system.-- Patton t / c 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Info Box
If somebody else puts in an info box like the other Sryker models that would be great, im bad at those things.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Countermeasures" section.
The "Countermeasures" section is completely barren aside from a statement about how the addition of a gun module and the subsequent reduction in hatch size makes escape difficult. This is in no way related to countermeasures of any sort.

This is a phrase (with accompanying source) that would be far better suited in the "Crew Amenities" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.226.233 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
This article has parts which are very closely paraphrased. This can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following: The source says:
 * Because of the budget crunch and a relatively tight deadline of 24 months, the Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market.

Kmiecik says the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10 vehicles. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a “requirements document” that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. The article says:
 * The Army will not spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market. Due to budget constraints, the selection process has a relatively tight deadline of 24 months. Up to 140 candidates are being considered, and the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a requirements document that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors.

I've bolded to make it more clear where language follows precisely on its source - some language has been rearranged, some words have been omitted and a few words changed.

This is an example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely, and other sources may also be involved.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Closely paraphrased section rewritten. America789 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working on the example, but I'm afraid that the problem is not addressed. As I noted, there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely, and these remain untouched. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While clearly an improvement, I'm afraid the once passage that was rewritten is pretty clearly still derivative of the original. The way you are going about it will make it extremely difficult to produce something that is not - attempting to separate from our source by changing wording here and there leaves the structure intact and makes it difficult to do anything other than a superficial modification. Closely paraphrased passages need to be written "in your own words", in accordance with our copyright policy: "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely."


 * The problem doesn't lie only in the bolded words, although these are the most obvious issue. Close paraphrasing contains some useful information on how to do a rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M1128 Mobile Gun System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609185146/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=3740 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=3740

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1128 Mobile Gun System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119075326/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1294&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationaldefensemagazine.org%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts%2FAllPosts.aspx to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1294&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationaldefensemagazine.org%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts%2FAllPosts.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1128 Mobile Gun System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115937/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013armament/Hill.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013armament/Hill.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracies in the material being cited
I've noticed a number of discrepancies in the information from the 11th cited source when compared to the others, and looking into the source, it doesn't cite any sources for it's information. This leads me to believe that it may not in fact be a reliable source of information to base this article on. FourteenPeasants (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)