Comments:U.S. Army revives next-generation Ground Combat Vehicle program
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| As long as it can | 1 | 19:05, 7 December 2010 |
save us from China, that would be good. Anti-infantry sounds promising.
The Army have their own people in charge of this project. This has been delayed too many times to let it layed anymore. Its waste of US Tax Dollar money, M2/M3 Bradleys are aging, you can only rebuild them so many times. I hope their able make a non-political decision and stick with right tool for the job. -- Colt9033 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)