Talk:VBCI

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / French

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 not 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
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Véhicule blindé de combat d'infanterie to Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie. The result of the discussion was moved.

British[edit]

The British governement was involved in this programme? I have not heard that, and it seems strange to me that they would be involved in this programme and Boxer MRAV at the same time. Perhaps it was a low level involvement. Can someone add details? David.j.james 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to other sources, the British gov was involved in this project, pulled out and got involved in Boxer MRAV, pulled out because it was too heavy for air transport, was involved in a program with the US that was cancelled, considered this vehicle again and now has selected an American vehicle! david j james (different login ) 81.223.81.160 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to also be in the running for a Canadian contract. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with contemporary vehicles[edit]

this chart on there, basically it have the VBCI as sole modern vehicle with bunch of unimportant legacy or totally obsolete vehicles it being compared to, and yeah LAV-25 and BTR-90 are legacy, the Egyptian and Chinese designs listed, outright obsolete. The comparison should be to likes of Swedish SEP, Finnish AMV, American STRYKER, and German BOXER, and maybe few others, like designs from Italy, and maybe Spain, Austria etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.213.83 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this?

**Comparison of some modern IFVs**
	VBCI	Patria AMV	Stryker	Pandur II	/ Boxer
Weight	25.6 t (28.2 short tons)	26 t (29 short tons)	16.47 t (18.16 short tons)	22 t (24 short tons)	25.2 t (27.8 short tons)
Primary armament	M811 25 mm auto cannon	various configurations	M68A1E4 105mm cannon or 40mm automatic grenade launcher MK19 or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun M2 Browning or 7.62mm caliber machine gun M240	various configurations	40mm automatic grenade launcher (Heckler & Koch GMG) or 12.7mm heavy machine gun (M3M)
Secondary armament	coaxial 7.62mm machine gun
Road range	750 km (470 mi)	800 km (500 mi)	500 km (310 mi)	700 km (430 mi)	1,100 km (680 mi)
Maximum velocity (on road)	100 km/h (62 mph)	100 km/h (62 mph)	100 km/h (62 mph)	105 km/h (65 mph)	103 km/h (64 mph)
Capacity (maximum)	2 crew + 9 passengers	3 crew + 8 passengers	2 crew + 9 passengers	2 crew + 6 passengers	3 crew + 8 passengers

--noclador (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what's the point of having such a table on this article, it repeats info already mentioned for the vbci and adds info for totally unrelated vehicles. I think it should be removed. --Victor12 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge VBCI 2 into this page[edit]

VBCI 2 should be merge into this page since it is just a new prototype version of the VBCI.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2022[edit]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Véhicule blindé de combat d'infanterie → Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie – Revert unexplained 2008 move. It's a proper noun. Schierbecker (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to VBCI. Most English-language sources use "VBCI", which is currently a primary redirect to this article. This would appear to be the better title. 162 etc. (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea. Schierbecker (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to VBCI – clearly the common name. Incidentally, the 2008 move was probably done to make the (decidedly French) title conform with French capitalization rules. They generally go easy on the shift key. Favonian (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2022 (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.