Talk:BCT Modernization

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Multimedia

"Multimedia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCT Mod (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BCT?

What is a BCT? There's not even a link to it. The opening is useless without basic background info. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked Brigade combat team for clarity. Hohum (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axed

The Class IV and a couple of UGV's got axed last week accoring to this. [1] username 1 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is evidenced by the army capabilitys page. [2] The GCV lives on though.username 1 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement tag

I've seen some tentative edits towards making this article more encyclopaedic, but it has a long way to go. I'll try to assist with this and suggest knowledgeable editors aggressively edit the article to remove the overwhelming U.S. Army POV. The army has plenty of venues to publicize unvarnished organizational views - Wikipedia should attempt to present information in a balanced fashion. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of removing this tag. There's barely any content to begin with. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]