Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M8 Armored Gun System

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M8 Armored Gun System edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

M8 Armored Gun System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An interesting topic (to me): A light tank that changed hands between defense contractors three times over four decades, and which the U.S. Army dumped no less than four times. The Army's light tank strategy has been vaporous since its decision to divest the M551 Sheridan in the late '70s. One challenge in writing this was distinguishing the AGS from the numerous conflicting light tank programs of the late '80s onward. There were many overlapping initiatives that muddied the waters with different requirements (Tracked or wheeled? Airdrop capable for the 82nd Airborne? Pure fleet of MBTs only?). Sources are mostly news reporting from Inside the Army, some R. P. Hunnicutt and Steven J. Zaloga, and some Army theses for good measure. Contemporaneous news reporting before 1992 was difficult to come by. Schierbecker (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nb4

  • I have no idea whether Perry ever decided to support canceling the AGS, allowing the Army to re-appropriate FY1996 funds for the AGS. I have looked everywhere for a source.
  • I have not been able to find specs of the Mobile Gun System and Mobile Protected Firepower variants. It is possible that some details may be found in later editions of Janes. The latest edition I have access to is Jane's Land Warfare Platforms Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2017–2018. Schierbecker (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

I regret that this article has sat here for so long.

  • Lead: the fact that the tank is sometimes called the Buford should be in the body.
    Question? Now cited in the lead, but still not in the body. Needs to be repeated in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is no need for fn 3 in the header. But it should have a page number.
    Question? Now fn 6. But still no page number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it named after John Buford?
    checkY Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to define the abbreviations ACR, AGS, LAPES, TACOM on first use
    Defined now, but LAPES is used before it has been defined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A joint Army–Marine Corps program was explored." You mean mooted?
    checkY Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$800 million plan" consider using the {{inflation}} template to get present-day dollar amounts
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around the same time, the Army Chief of Staff issued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995."' Are you sure it was a promissory note?
    checkY Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1989, the Armored Gun System" Finally defined, but we've been talking about it for a few paragraphs
    checkY Okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor of the 82nd Airborne Division" This unit has already been mentioned above. Unlink, and suggest moving the fact that it was part of the 82nd up to first mention
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1991, the Senate and House Armed Services Committee" Two of them, so add an "s" on the end of "committee"
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "appropriators"?
    Unresolved, but meh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arrived at Fort Knox, Kentucky in April 1995" Comma after "Kentucky"
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Army issued a stop work order to United Defense the following month.[44] The Army estimated killing the program would save the service $1 billion. The Army hoped to reallocate unspent FY1996 funds" Three sentences in a row starting with "The Army" Consider re-phrasing.
    checkY Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House appropriations national security committee " Is that a committee or a subcommittee?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Army stood up an Immediate Ready Company" Are you sure "stood up" is the right phrase here?
    checkY Okay then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vehicles were intended to bolster the 82nd's 17th Cavalry Squadron" Should this be the 1st Squadron 17th Cavalry?
    checkY Resolved. But link 17th Cavalry Regiment Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unsure what Congress' arguments in favour of retaining the system were.
  • Link Vietnam War, National Guard, United States Marine Corps, United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Army Vice Chief of Staff, 105 mm gun, day/night thermal sight
    checkY Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the Vickers/FMC Mk 5 in the table? I would suggest eliminating this column
    checkY Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut back on the "See also"
  • Weed out the duplicated links

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As best as I can tell, M8 "Buford" was coined by Tom Clancy in Armored Cav (1994). Mike Sparks (the guy who crusaded on Wiki talk pages to rename the M113 after General James M. Gavin) calls it the "Buford" in Air-Mech-Strike (2002) and also the "Ridgeway" on Combat Reform. I could include a footnote that notes that Clancy was the first, or among the first, to give it that name, but I'm not sure where I can put that information in the body because there is little verifiable information I could write. Schierbecker (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Should this be the 1st Squadron 17th Cavalry? I admit to knowing almost nothing of formations of the U.S. Army. The source says they were destined for the "17th Cavalry Squadron of the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg." According to the source this proposed delivery was requested by the 81st Airborne. Schierbecker (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over this myself. It's almost certain that the unit in question is 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, and I have changed the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure "stood up" is the right phrase here? I meant stood up as in "activate." wikt:stand up#English
  • What is the significance of the Vickers/FMC Mk 5 in the table? I would suggest eliminating this column That refers to the Vickers/FMC Mark 5 battle tank listed in the variants section.
  • Are you sure it was a promissory note? I used the author's (public domain) own words. I'm unsure if there is a better word.
  • What are "appropriators"? Is this not a common term?
  • I believe I've addressed everything else, User:Hawkeye7. Look forward to any other feedback you might have. Schierbecker (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am dealing with a work/personal life-related issue. My edits to this review may be sporadic over the next few weeks. Appreciate your patience. Schierbecker (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hawkeye7, any update? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all the original issues have been resolved. Two marked for action. Will support then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The best solution I have found is to mention "Buford" in an image caption. How's that? Schierbecker (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Sources are generally of good quality
  • Bowman, Kendall & Saunder is not used.
  • Boelke is a master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Like mine )
  • Freedman is a War College Individual Study Project, not a thesis
  • Why is Hunnicut 2015a? There is no other Hunnicut source
  • Publisher and access dates required for fn 94 and 95
  • Note that you should only include "This article incorporates text from this source" if it has been cut and pasted.
  • Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a couple other Hunnicutt's cited. Removed Boelke. Added cites to Bowman, Kendall & Saunder. Everything else you mentioned is done. Schierbecker (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One unreferenced bit in fn 6.
  • "Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army" source is out of alphabetic order.
  • As an aside, you don't need to mark a source as "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." unless you have actually copied/pasted the text from that source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added File:Close Combat Vehicle Light National Museum of Military Vehicles.jpg, File:Inside the CCVL.webm, File:CCVLMagnetTest.webm, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light rear.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light gun mantlet.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light roadwheel.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light pepperpot muzzle.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light smoke grenade launcher.jpg, File:Close Combat Vehicle Light laser rangefinder.jpg. Schierbecker (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (take two) - pass edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Not familiar with this topic at all, but will give this a read-through this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a shame we can't tie the vehicle down to being named for John Buford. Buford was one of my childhood heroes.
  • "In the 1980s, the United States Army began looking for a more capable replacement for the Sheridan. During this time, a string of Army projects to update or replace the Sheridan were begun, but all ended without the Army committing to buy." - citation needed
  • Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS
  • "By then, the AGS program had gathered steam due to the successful deployment of Sheridans in Panama and the Gulf War" - why would successful deployment of the Sheridans led to the plan to replace them gathering steam?
  • check the infobox data against the table. For instance, the infobox says that height was 7 ft 10 inches (94 inches), but the big data table says 100-101 inches
  • "who privately expressed his irritation to Perry about having learned " - fully introduce Perry here, not in the next paragraph

Ready for the design section, will pick up from there soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The weight figures in the infobox don't match with those in the protection section? Level I: up to 39,800 (body) vs 38,800 (IB) Level II: 44,270 (body) vs 44,000 (IB)
  • "Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed?
  • "The Close Combat Vehicle Light at the National Museum of Military Vehicles in 2020. Photos courtesy: Amazing Ace." - inline external links like here are a no-no

Will revisit this once these are responded to. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed? No, they do not. However the M1128 Mobile Gun System had a problem with blast overpressures developing between the hull and pepperpot muzzle brake. This was solved by adding a metal baffle around the muzzle break. Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS It does not get much more confusing than this. They are terms for the same concept, not a specific program of record. The infantry school preferred the term "Assault Gun" while the armor school preferred "Armored Gun."Schierbecker (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worthwhile to clarify that the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System are the same thing; most readers won't know necessarily know that. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote about the Assault/Armored Gun System, and also about the "Buford" name. Schierbecker (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're ready for me to look back over this. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schierbecker, is this ready for Hog Farm yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gog the Mild, give me until Sunday or so. Just started a new job. Things are a bit crazy atm. Thanks! Schierbecker (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schierbecker ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done with edits, User:Gog the Mild/User:Hog Farm. Schierbecker (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been quite busy myself lately, but hope to get back to this over the next three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 02:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding varying weight claims: Hunnicutt gave combat weight for level 1, while Miller gave all-up weight, which I suppose is different. Hunnicutt gave roll-on/roll-off weight for level 2, while Foss gave all-up weight. Fixed this by giving a range. Schierbecker (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I just don't know enough about this subject matter to be able to judge it too closely. Hog Farm Talk 21:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA edit

  • Link both Congress, the Department of Defense and Mobile Gun System in the lead.
  • "light tank in Vietnam and" Maybe add war here?
  • "armed with a 25 mm caliber gun" This is a compound adjective so the unit should be written fully and a convert is needed.
  • "problematic 152 mm caliber gun/launcher" Convert?
  • "mounted a 105 mm cannon to a Sheridan" Same as above compound adjective and a convert is needed.
  • "120 mm cannons" Convert?
  • There are four howevers maybe reduce some?
  • "Senate appropriators declined the Army's" Link Sanate.
  • "only a 25 mm caliber cannon" Compound adjective here.
  • "Army Acquisition Executive Stephen K. Conver became" Is there a link for Conver?
  • "production of six test units.[54][49]" Re-order the refs.
  • "was valued at $800 million" Is there a recent estimate of how much this would be?
  • "utilizing a 330 hp (250 kW) diesel engine" Compound adjective here.
  • "with a 552 hp (412 kW) diesel engine" Same as above.
  • "firing a 105 mm gun mounted" Same as above.
  • "C-130 at an altitude of 1300 feet" --> "C-130 at an altitude of 1,300 feet" And a convert is needed because I have no idea how much this is.
  • "scheduled for March 1997.[54][3]" Re-order the refs.
  • "for the $1 billion originally" Is there a recent estimate of how much this is?
  • "Shinseki's concept.[88]United Defense LP (UDLP) proposed the AGS" A space is needed here.
  • "United Defense's facility in Pennsylvania to Fort Bragg, North Carolina" Link both states.
  • "for an upcoming deployment to Iraq" --> "for an upcoming deployment to the recent war in Iraq"
  • "Canada, Germany, Malaysia and Singapore had" Link the last two countries 'cause they're not that well known.
  • "vehicle armed with a 105 mm or 120 mm caliber" Compound adjective here.
  • "A Mobile Protected Firepower testbed at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection at Fort Benning c. 2023" Add a circa template here.
  • "Two eight-barrel smoke grenade" --> "Two 8-barrel smoke grenade"
  • "550 hp (410 kW) at 2400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2400 rpm with DF2 diesel" --> "550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm with DF2 diesel"
  • "This had 65% commonality with the eight-cylinder" Replace % with percent.
  • "used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[116][3]" Re-order the refs here.
  • "rounds per minute.[128][70]" Re-order the refs here.
  • "eliminated to save weight.[126][118]" Same as above.
  • "were a M240 7.62 mm caliber" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
  • Both 39 and 40 in converts should be rounded in the info table.
  • "It was armed with a 105 mm low recoil force gun" Compound adjective here.
  • " was an XM291 120 mm electrothermal-chemical" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
  • "but integrated the 120 mm gun" Compound adjective here.
  • "A prototype EX35 gun is mounted in the FMC XM4 Armored Gun System (CCVL) turret basket c. 1984" A circa template is needed here.
  • "An M8 AGS rolls off a C-130 for a platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999" Circa can be shortened and needs a circa template.
  • "Pre-production unit in level 2 armor circa 1994" Same as above.
  • "Pre-production unit circa 1994" Same as above.
  • In the table of the AGS production schedule as of 1995 there's a "nils" and a "0" but why aren't the nils 0s?
  • "CCVL c. 1992" Circa needs a circa template.
  • The "Specifications" in the infobox is a bit of a mess can we have some white lines here to separate the different units?
  • "M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.

That's everything from me it was a lot but I think it's worth it. Nicely done. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel icky converting metric caliber units to imperial. Can we not? I don't know of any sources that describe a 105 mm gun as 4.13386" (4.13") or a 25 mm gun as a 0.984252. There are a few rare exceptions such as the .50 BMG, aka 12.7×99mm NATO.
The reason is that they are not measurements at all, but common names. There's also a practice of changing names but not the actual calibre of the weapon. I think that conversions should be avoided, because it can only mislead readers into thinking that it is an actual measurement, when most of the time it is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding compound adjectives. I believe "mm" doesn't need to be spelled out per MOS:HYPHEN.
re:"Is there a recent estimate of how much this is?" I think you are asking how much in total was spent on the program. No, I haven't come across that figure. Would love to know. Or do you just want me to adjust for inflation? I can do that. Schierbecker (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/M8_Armored_Gun_System&oldid=1150017776"