Talk:Cadillac Gage Commando

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From red blueprint?[edit]

This thingie looks almost identical to the soviet armoured 4x4 BRDM-2. Who copied whom? (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The BRDM-2 appears at around the same time as the V-100. Unless someone was spying in on the other during the development stage, and this would have been TerraSpace or some other agent of Cadillac Gage since it was largely a private venture on their part, then its just a coincidence that they look similar (they are far from identical if you investigate the various features). -- Thatguy96 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hell, it looks like a hybrid of an LAV-25 and a Humvee. -- (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Except for the fact that this family predates both of those by quite some time. I can also see some similarity to the BRDM-2, but there are many 4x4 AFVs that look quite similar (but can there really be that much variety). To the untrained eye, indeed, they can be easily misidentified, but those who know what to look for can determine what a particular vehicle is. For example, one identifying feature for the BRDM-2 would be the two sets of wheels under the armored body that are lowered for use over difficult terrain (unless it is a Polish upgraded model). There is also the distinctly Soviet turret with a KPV-T 14.5mm heavy machine gun. If you really want to see two AFVs that look similar, check out the Dragoon 4x4 AFV and compare it to the V-150.SAWGunner89 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

V-150 in late 1970s[edit]

I'm writing a fiction book with the V-150 in some scenes. Can anyone tell me if they mounted the 76mm or 90mm turrets at that time? Thanks. Mytg8 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the V-150 itself was always equipped with a 90mm Cockerill main gun. Of course, there were so many variants of the V-100 series produced, including many one-off demonstration models and export models, there are literally countless weapons packages that could have been fitted. If you are willing to spend a little, there are some excellent websites available that require only token membership fees ( used to be one but I believe that it has recently changed to no longer being an information database), as well as a few books that are avalible (anything by Jane's, Osprey Press, or Squadron/Signal Publications I recommend) that may be able to answer your question. I would say to err on the side of caution, and use the 90mm Cockerill (which is today designated the Mk.3MA1; it might have been designated differently in the time period in question).SAWGunner89 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The only "standard" armament configuration for the V-150 was the Cadillac Gage 1-meter turret, which could be configured with a wide array of weapons. The vehicle was intended to be configured to the specifications of the client. The 90mm Cockerill Mk I and 90mm Mecar were both offered initially, with the Cockerill gun becoming the sole option after some period of time. As that weapon was improved (with the Mk II and Mk III variants) it was offered in the place of the previous weapons. The 76mm L22A1 was also offered as an armament option. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


In the variants section, there is a sentence that claims that the V-150S was developed expressly for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. According to Jane's Tank Recognition Guide, however, the V-150S was not developed expressly for the Saudi National Guard, but was instead an extended wheel-base model that supplanted the original V-150 model on the Cadillac-Gage production lines in 1985, the "S" presumably standing for stretched or an equivalent there of. In fact, according to Jane's, Saudi Arabia did not even operate the V-150S model, but instead operated a mixture of V-150s and V-200s. There is no evidence, at least in any of the texts I have in my possession, that it was an export variant developed for Saudi Arabia. If someone else approves, I will change the inaccurate statement to another that is more representative of the truth, or present me with substantiated evidence, which I will happily accept.SAWGunner89 (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Saudis acquired a fleet of V-150s in the late 1970s for the SANG, well before the appearance of the V-150S. Only Singapore operated the V-200, contrary to what Janes might suggest. Other operators of the V-200 series is generally a product of a misidentification of Bravia Chaimite V-200s as Cadillac Gage V-200s. The V-200 was offered for sale for a very short period of time before the introduction of the V-150. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, we can't always trust Jane's on matter such as this, since they are very well known to have journalist/reporters who like to use weasel words in their reports at times. Go search through their archive and see for yourself! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Why does the column with the picture/info/specifications use British spelling? For an American vehicle it should use American spelling, not to mention that the rest of the article uses American spelling.


Some NPA redacted Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC) removed Florida Highway Patrol from the Operator list. I put it back as it is accurate, and can be found easily with a google search and is also found in the article on Florida Highway Patrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He NPA redacted Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC) just did it again. He needs to be reported. I put Florida back, but it looks like he has really screwed up the article. NPA redacted Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

    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 13:23, 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 NotifyOnline 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)