Talk:Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Misspelled name; requires admin because of copy-paste move. —Michael Z. 2005-06-30 17:48 Z

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support This is my request. —Michael Z. 2005-06-30 17:48 Z

Discussion

I've reverted the copy-paste move to Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle—that's the wrong way to move an article because it loses the edit history, which is important for legal reasons. It's now impossible to move the article without an admin's intervention. I'll post this article on Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Michael Z. 2005-06-30 17:43 Z

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.

Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle

I've added the AFV template as in the stryker article. Anyone have a picture? 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LAV-III

I am not sure how this works, my apologies if I mess it up. But the picture for the Coyote looks alot like a LAV 3 to me, however I don't have the time to really look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.221.227 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a Coyote. For easy proof, the front struts have springs, and are therefore not the hydropneumatic struts as on the LAV III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.95.166 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

They are superficially similar upon first viewing, but the Coyote is a specialized version of the eight-wheeled Mowag Piranha generation 2, and the LAV-III is a generation 3. A little more experience reveals that they are apples and oranges. The only thing really similar is the turret, and even then, not all LAV-IIIs have it. Sigma-6 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tank

No combat experience at all would like to see how this tank can survive in combat if anyone can figure that out and add it this article that would be amasing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.83.195 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a tank, it's a reconnaissance vehicle. It's survivable under much more limited circumstances than a tank. Basically, it's intended to withstand small-arms fire, and with the MEXAS light package, RPGs under certain circumstances. The sloped bottom can, under certain circumstances defend the crew against mines and IEDs. It's very, very wrong to think of this as a tank, however. Tanks are very large, very heavy, very heavily armed and armoured tracked vehicles with powerful engines which are designed for mobility, survivability, and which carry a great deal of armament, focussing on a large caliber direct-fire main gun. To use this vehicle as a 'tank' would be suicidal. It's intended to keep a low profile, and spy on enemy movements, avoiding taking fire. At times it can be used in a fire-support role, since it carries a 25mm chain gun. Just to re-iterate, the term tank is only the name of one particular kind of armoured vehicle, and it is vastly overused. The vast majority of armoured vehicles are not only not tanks, they don't even look like them to a trained observer. Sigma-6 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coyote Reconnaissance 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/20071002044142/http://www.dnd.ca/menu/coyote/ to http://www.dnd.ca/menu/coyote/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429185239/http://www.gdcanada.com/content/detail.cfm?acronym=vetronics to http://www.gdcanada.com/content/detail.cfm?acronym=vetronics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111092308/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/CanadaMilitaryPosture.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/CanadaMilitaryPosture.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger with Bison APC

As both the Bison armoured personnel carrier and the Coyote are based on a common chassis design and share many common systems, I believe it makes sense to merge the two into one article. Burnsnet27 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. They are variants of the same vehicle, in the same way as the LAV VI 25mm and the ACSV. trackratte (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, the ASLAV article covers all three hull types and all seven variants. Cavalryman (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC).

@Burnsnet27, Trackratte, and Cavalryman: there seems to be agreement to merge among those with subject expertise, but it's not clear what the joint title would be, how precisely readers are served by a joint page, and whether ASLAV should be included in the merge (that's quite a big page). Any thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, they're all part of the LAV Family of Vehicles, from LAV 1 (like Cougar, Grizzly, Bison, etc) to the latest LAV VII. trackratte (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose merging ASLAV, LAV-25 and/or LAV III with any of these at this stage, but here I think merge Bison into Coyote, the latter supports the former. Cavalryman (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC).

Requested move 14 February 2022

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 to Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle → Bison/Coyote – The merge discussed in the above section was probably a good idea, but the Bison is probably the main topic. The Bison was designed before the Coyote. It makes more sense chronologically to talk about the Bison first. My Jane's combat vehicle reference guide has a whole entry for the Bison with the Coyote only listed as a variant. I think a combination Bison/Coyote title is in order so that the reader isn't confused. Schierbecker (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Bison or Coyote armoured vehicle or Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles? The suggested form with the slash is hard to interpret. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the latter suggestion. Schierbecker (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I also find the latter one more natural. Regarding WP:SINGULAR, perhaps it could fall under the exception for "the names of classes of objects". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed MOS:SLASH avoid slashes; the alternatives point out by BarrelProof are much better -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be completely unprecedented to use a slash. There is T-54/T-55, which is arguably the common name. Schierbecker (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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.