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
Just noting while buzzing through that this article seems at once pro-US biased. "ThE country luckily" had a high industrial capacity? Wasn't very lucky for the germans, was it? --TVPR 12:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there are a few spex missing, like fuel capacity (477 USgal, 1807 l), engine torque (1830pd-ft @2100rpm), engine compression ratio (4.92:1), ignition system (magneto), transmission (three speed; two fwd, 1 rev), track width (25.75"), electrical system (24VDC), trench crossing (11 ft), vertical wall clearing (4 ft), & turning circle (74 ft). Trekphiler (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved.– robertsky (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per guidance cited by nom. The terms being downcased are descriptive classifications not unlike "light truck". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BarrelProof and Cinderella. Dicklyon (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.