Talk:Warrior tracked armoured vehicle

message: Shouldn't this be at a singular title? Rmhermen 17:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
: Done ! Rama 10:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular title? 

message: I can't find any reference to British Warriors equipped with TOW, found a site where the text was probably lifted from - so that's one copyviol less anyhow. GraemeLeggett 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOW missile 

message: I'm sure I've seen these operated with a crew of two and a payload of 8 infantrymen. Anyone else heard of this? Rob cowie 16:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew Numbers? 

message: Should it be specified that there were no orders for the Warrior 2000? Edward Sandstig 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify that Warrior 2000 was not produced? 

message: I have changed the previous entry of '75km/h' to '46mph (75km/h)'. Since this is an article about a vehicle in use with the British army - and since we Brits rarely use metric in terms of measuring speed, I think this is more than justified. --195.195.239.151 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: ::Its armour is exceptional and has proven capable of protecting crew against mines; in Bosnia, A BBC TV crew captured a Warrior driving over a Serbian anti-tank mine, with little resulting damage. 
I have removed this, as there is no citation given, no year, nor any real detail that makes it particularly worthwhile in this article. --195.195.239.151 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Section

message: I've noticed that no combat history or statistics have been included.  I am wondering how it has worked in comparision to the M2/M3 Bradley fielded by the US Army.  Both vehicles operate in the same function, but designed around different doctrines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.206.48 (talk • contribs) 
It's better that's how it works. ;P --86.154.23.183 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Combat History

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warrior/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: http://www.janes.com/article/40082/lockheed-martin-warrior-capability-sustainment-programme
Phd8511 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WCSP 2014 

message: One of the links (third para in Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme) was 

and I changed that to 

because the old link did not work. I think he changed his hosting some time ago.
I don't know the details of the syntax of this cite option so I just updated the things that seemed wrong. Especially I don't understand the 'accessdate' parameter. I just set that to today. Apologies if I have done anything wrong. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing Link 

message: I've added a fact tag against VERDI being fitted with CT-40.  VERDI was in 1993, CT-40 development started in 1997.  As far as I can tell the VERDI had the RARDEN cannon fitted.  VERDI-2 literature refers to a 45 mm cannon - possibly the CTA 4 cannon which was around at the time. WCMemail 16:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Janes Fighting Vehicles 1997/7 states VERDI 2 was fitted with "a representation of a Medium Calibre Weapon System", so apparently a dummy rather than an actual gun. 86.14.138.8 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERDI-2 Comment