Talk:ASCOD

Crew Specs

A minor change: the article states ASCOD IFV can transport 3 crew plus 7 troopers but it carries, actually, 8 soldiers.

References:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/

http://www.doppeladler.com/oebh/kette/ulan.htm

http://www.deagel.com/Tracked-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles/ASCOD_a000405001.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.43.0 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the ASCOD AFV

I've read in quite a few forums, that the ASCOD originated through a requirement from the Greek Army for a new IFV to be named "Alexander", and was jointly designed by Steyer and ELBO. After Greece withdrew from the programm Steyer continued the development with a new partner - Santa Barbara. Is this true? Does anyone have any information? elgreco77 20:04, 13 November 2009

British ASCOD SV

Are there any details about other changes to the general specifications ? At present the article states the crew is 3+8 which is way to many for a reconnaissance/scout vehicle. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The data provided refers to the IFV version and currently I don't think there's much information about the FRES version. Arguably the huge increase in weight (from 30 to about 42 tonnes) will require a more powerful engine and the selected german turret will use more hull space, thus reducing the transport capacity.

Also, there's controverted data about it. This source states the ASCOD 2 can carry 3+7 soldiers, and it does not even refer to the British specialist vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.215.93 (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Design

There is no section on the design of the vehicle, ie detailing where the power pack, gearbox, or drive sprockets are located, nor detailing the type of infantry door/ramp. Perhaps someone in the know could add a Design section to better describe the vehicle itself.FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/ascod/

  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 ^Notify_Online 09:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ASCOD. 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/20131024113307/http://www.revistatenea.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1026.pdf to http://www.revistatenea.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1026.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/71050/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bvv.cz/en/idet/news2/general-dynamics-european-land-systems/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Pizarro

The text under the picture showing the Spanish version says something about ERA. Are you sure? That doesn't look to me like explosive tiles, just rather thin steel plates that are mounted with an air gap above the main armor to disturb projeciles and jets of shaped charges so they can't hit the main armor optimally anymore. The Austrian one has the same principle, just different plating. Explosive tiles of ERA would have to be considerably thicker to carry enough explosive mass to have an effect (see the tiles on a T-72B or T90 or M1A2-TUSK, or the SPz Puma with level C armor modules), so at least a few centimeters, while I see merely one centimeter if at all on the picture. Maybe someone with enough knowledge can say something about that.--91.41.39.190 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Sabrah ASCOD 2" is a light tank not a "Medium Main Battle Tank (MMBT)".

Some over-excited Philippines military fans are trying to labeled Sabrah ASCOD 2 Light Tank as "Medium Main Battle Tank (MMBT)". Sabrah ASCOD 2 clearly mentioned as Light Tanks by the manufacturer and no such term "MMBT" exists in military classification. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Elbit Sabrah Light Tank at Eurosatory 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Map in the Operators Section needs replacing

The Map in the Operators Section is currently out of date as it is missing both The United States and The Philippines as Operators represented in Blue on the Map. StarryDam (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)