Talk:M728 combat engineer vehicle

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

On 18 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle to M728 combat engineer vehicle. The result of the discussion was moved.

Successor

From the article:

In the post-war assessment, many armored unit commanders were in agreement that the engineers needed an M1 Abrams based chassis for heavy breaching and gap crossing equipment to keep pace with the Abrams.

So, did that ever happen? Are plans in the works? Was the project dropped? The article says the M728 CEV was taken out of service after 2000. What replaced it? Has any of that been decided, or what? It really feels like some information is missing here. Something should be said, even if it's only 'No final determination has yet been made on what vehicle will fill this role in the future.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.90.128 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. 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/20130730052102/http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/results.asp?CtryName=MOROCCO&FY=2005&IANAME=&TRANSTYPE= to http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/results.asp?CtryName=MOROCCO&FY=2005&IANAME=&TRANSTYPE=

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T39E2 photo

Could someone please upload https://www.ebay.com/itm/323904858032? Should be in public domain as it is the work of the US Army 5.178.188.143 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Fathoms Below (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle → M728 combat engineer vehicle – Not a proper name. Pretty commonly lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, lowercase the description of the vehicle type per precedents listed in User:Dicklyon/MIL precedents. Also the linked article M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle. Similar to Talk:T1 Light Tank, Talk:A7 Medium Tank, Talk:M1 Armored Car, Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle, Talk:M6 Bomb Service Truck, and Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, for example. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, WP:MILCAPS and ngram evidence. That which follows the M number unless it is a proper name like Sherman. This is a description (combat engineer vehicle - ie a vehicle for combat engineering). Also, per MOS:CAPSACRS, we don't cap to introduce an acronym such as CEV though other styles might. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support—no-brainer. These military contractors are just indulging in boosterism. Tony (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and previous comments in support. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another routine MOS:CAPS, MOS:MILCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE example. The M72B designation is a proper name, the rest is description that isn't consistently capitalized in the source material, and lower-casing it would be WP:CONSISTENT with innumerable previous cases. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:12, 24 October 2024 (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.