Talk:Stryker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stryker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] ERROR!!!

The stryker can run in 8x8 in high range, someone put down that it is only 8x8 in low range, also all-wheel drive is not true. All wheel driver vehicles are full time and cannot be swtched in and out of all-wheel drive. We also need to be careful what is in this article

OPSEC Some of these systems are classified and some of the stuff I have read in here can only be know by a operator or a mechanic. Please limit this to what is readily available on the internet about the Strykers wo we dont give valuable information to the enemy, for free no less!!

PlumbTN, I don't see anything in the article that's not readily available on the internet. It may not all be gathered in the same place (except here), but I didn't learn anything completely new from the article. The Dark 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing, Citing, and Rewrite

I've started all the above. Please feel free to do the same Tirronan 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protective Features section incomplete

The protective features section needs to be completed, especially the CTIS bullet.

Kiwinanday 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Then proceed and make sure you source and footnote it Tirronan 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

"However, Canadians have had quite a bit of trouble with the LAV IIIs (which the Stryker is based on) getting stuck in the mud in Afghanistan and rolling over. [9]. This is not in fact accurate, the vehicle has performed exemplary service, and any vehicle at high speeds, on narrow roads, dodging civilian traffic with weak shoulders unable to support a 16+ ton vehicle will have rollover issues. Especially when civilian vehicles run into it. There has only been a handful in six years of service in Afghanistan; as for mud, Afghanistan has very trying terrain for any vehicle, and all vehicles get stuck in mud as any experienced armoured personnel can attest to."

Does anyone else think that the uncited information here seems rather biased?

I am working on the article to get it less POV among other things. However the LAV III has had roll over problems. The tone of this seems defensive where the vehicle is concerned and the tone should be neutral.

Now I have responded to an IP address which I normally will not. If you wish to contribute please create an account on Wikipedia its free. Tirronan 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)