Talk:Oshkosh M-ATV

M2 .50 Cal
They can be armed with a M2 .50 caliber machine gun as well, not sure why thats not on the primary armament section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.178.49 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TOW
Standard, currently-fielded MATV variant CANNOT be equipped with a TOW/ITAS (wire-guided anti-tank missile system). Oshkosh has produced a prototype MMV (multi-mission vehicle) that it intends to sell to the US Army, but this is not yet standard. References: http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-winter-oshkosh-develops-m-atv-tow-c/; http://oshkoshdefense.com/news/29/oshkosh-defense-to-debut-m-atv-equipped-with-tow-weapon-system-at-ausa-winter-2011. While a Car&Driver article (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/oshkosh-m-atv-specialty-file) mentions the TOW, it is not an authoritative sources on these specifics.

Thanks & M-ATV exports
Thanks to Fnlayson for tidying up my continualy poor linking and formatting (I will get it right one day) and for dealing with my seeming inability to use US spelling... Is this the correct place to say thanks? Also, to explain thought processes behind it..., I just re-added the 'direct from Oshkosh' wording to the 750 UAE sale as there is a very distinct difference between an FMS sale (original 55) and a direct sale (the 750), the latter (as it suggest) direct business with the manufacturer. As originally presented I think it kind of suggests when read the 750 were FMS also. I also put back in when deliveries of the 750 to the UAE were scheduled to commence (January 2013) to highlight what is (outside of the US) a very short delivery schedule for such a vehicle. I do know that deliveries did actually start in January, but I can't find public domain confirmation of this fact anywhere (yet), so won't put 'commenced' for fear of a [citation needed...] appearing!Wolpat (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand and am fine with most of that. I feel the expected date for beginning of deliveries is not that important now and largely obsolete with deliveries from that order completed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

M-ATV - the program not the vehicle...
I've just spent a good couple of hours adding some M-ATV program history to the Oshkosh M-ATV entry, and had a thought while doing it. Do other Wiki editors think it might be worth creating a standalone entry for the program? I'm happy that what I've added in the M-ATV [vehicle] entry isn't too detailed, but there's plenty more out there on who proposed what, why, how and so on for M-ATV, the program. Any thoughts given it was a >8000-vehicle program for which I can't actually find a decent single source history anywhere right now, not even in Jane's Armour & Artillery - which is a surprise. Wolpat (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think separating the program from the vehicle is good idea. The program info provides background on why the vehicle was designed like it is.  And this article is not long enough to need splitting (see WP:Article size).  Adjusting the sections such as adding subsection labels may help with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No issues with that; you're far wiser in the workings (and rules/requirements) of Wiki than I.Wolpat (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The background part is just what I usually look for as a reader, nothing more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oshkosh M-ATV. 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/20100321164415/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a45276fd7-26a0-49b0-b38e-d0d3c75c39fa

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 13:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MATV
I was deployed in 2009 an 2010 when these MATV so called ”safe as MRAP" is a bull shit statement.. During my deployment we had each of these vehicles hit. 4 lived, 4 died. One of the soliders from the MRAP didn't even return to Germany for treatment. While the other 3 did, but were alive! The other 4 in this tiny pos MATV died that day 1 immediately while the other 3 suffered and died. 1 thrown from the turret, 1 died on the helicopter an the other in surgery. All because of the new safety vehicle... The humvees weren't safe. How did you think this would really be? With no room inside this vehicle, no thickness to the body of the truck. They never stood a chance an are yet 10000 in the military. All I think about when I see or hear of this vehicle is my brothers killed that day! 75.117.6.205 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)