Talk:Ripsaw (vehicle)

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology

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

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

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current Issues

Reads much like advertising. Final statement is fairly dubious. How does its speed enable a separate manned tank get out of nuclear fallout xzone for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.164.3 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the missing citation about vehicle usage in Iraq. I can't find this information anywhere. I think this information should be removed since it cannot be confirmed. Here is a summary of the most telling articles that uphold this position. A Popular Mechanics article published Oct. 16, 2019: "The Army tested the Ripsaw from 2010 to 2017, but never actually bought significant numbers of the tiny tank." There is no mention of this being tested in Iraq but also no mention that it wasn't. I suspect, though I do not know, that the army DID NOT test in Iraq. <https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a29476669/ripsaw-m5/>

What has been integrated with the Ripsaw tank is the Common Weapons Station (CROWS) which has been used in Iraq. As per a US Army media release, <https://www.army.mil/article/147977/ripsaw_could_lead_soldiers_into_battle_someday> "Testa and his team converted the vehicle for Army use. Atop the Ripsaw sits a system Soldiers are familiar with - a Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, or CROWS. CROWS has been used in combat as far back as 2004 in Iraq. Testa's team supported that initiative, fielding more than 10,000, he said. CROWS allows a Soldier inside a tank, Humvee, Stryker or any other vehicle to fire his weapon safely from inside the armor-protected vehicle." This is what may have lead to the confusion.

A local newspaper (Fosters Daily Democrat- 24 Sept. 2008) hyping the system also made no mention of it being shipped to Iraq. The key quote comes from one of the creators: "The Ripsaw has been tested at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey; the pending appropriations would provide additional testing at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. The vehicle would need to go through a battery of additional testing before it reaches the battlefield, Howe said." <https://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/GJNEWS_01/709249848/-1/FOSNEWS> If the vehicle had already been used in Iraq as the wiki page suggests, this would definitely be something the creator would brag about. Rather he says it's still a long way from being placed on the battlefield.

Gradients

What is meant by "The vehicle can traverse 50 degree gradients and 45 degree slopes" as the article reads on 2020-10-14 ? Those words don't mean it can go up a 50 degree slope, or across a 45 degree side slope. If that's what's meant, other words, like what I just wrote, mean that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]