Talk:List of U.S. military vehicles by model number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated List-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.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Military history (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

mistry of M11[edit]

did you ever notice that theres no M11 of any thing? I think the rumor or best guess is that it to closley resembles a roman numeral MII so in order to avoid confusion the army never used it. anybody know for sure? Brian in denver (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


why refrence to Canada, other nations use some of these vehicles and the M notation is specific to the US (compare with FV for the UK)GraemeLeggett 08:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm thinking this list was ill concieved, it would have been better if divided up into vehicle types. since theres about 500 vehicles with the M-1 designation alone. I think somone needs to put up an explanation of how the nomenclature system works. so novices arent confused.Brian in denver (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ok well if there are no objections then I will try to reformat the begining M-numbers, into there right catagories, the army quit doubling up the M-numbers somtime around M150 (1958) or so? after that most numbers are suposed to go sequentallyBrian in denver (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ok got that done. there is quite a bit of confusion partilly becouse exhisting lists dont take into acount that different systems or vehicles, like mobile rocket launchers, have there own M-series genome. in order to sort it properly you have to look at it both chronoligicly, and by type. Brian in denver (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the M mean?[edit]

Y'know, it might be helpful to include...Well...if anybody knows, that is...

What does the M designator mean? --Penta 14:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Colloquially, I think it means "model" but I can't back that up with any sort of reference. It's one of those things that has been so long, that it just is without an explanation. bahamut0013 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

yep I cant point to any one source, but from discussions on history forums, it means model, origanlly when the U.S. started out in order to diferentiate itself from the brittish use of MARK-roman numeral, the U.S. went with Model-year,so it came out like this- M-1816 muskett. about 1920 thay did away with the year, and went to a number M-1 helmet.Brian in denver (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

M25 or M26 "Dragon Wagon"?[edit]

I've noticed some confusion with the designation of this US Heavy Tank Transporter of late WW2. According to the book "Dragon Wagon: A Visual History of the U.S. Army's Heavy Tank Transporter 1941 - 1955", M25 was the denomination of the complete "tank recovery" tractor-trailer combination, while M26 was the designation given to the tractor itself (the trailer was designated the M15).
Although I was (yet) unable to read other printed references (I'm aware of at least one more, a book in the "In Action" series by Squadron-Signal publications), I believe that the one mentioned above is serious enough to justify ammendment of current references to this tank transporter in Wikipedia (which includes this list). After doing that, I will create a "start" article about the M25/M26 tank transporter/recovery vehicle.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

trailer dollys[edit]

after a study of the list, it makes you wunder how many stupid trailer dollys, are needed for the nike system! guess thay never heard of standardization.Brian in denver (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Note that "Nike" is a disambiguation page. The various internal links in this entry pointing there need to be disambiguated properly. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • yah, it would be nice if some one with a BA degree in Nike systems would sort out wich vehicle went with wich system. and what JETDS component. and while thay are at it, add the V-number to the signal corps list.Brian in denver (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

Can someone explain to me how this list has been organized? If it's simply model numbers in ascending order then wouldn't it be better to place it in model type then order by number? Also what qualifies as a "vehicle", does this refer to a Motorized vehicle or simply any type of Vehicle(e.g. a trailer)? I feel I must be missing something here so I'm asking before I go changing anything. EgoNonBarrus (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Before 1958 M-numbers were assigned by type, thats why I broke them up. after 1958 thay were assigned consecutivly to avoid confusion.. then during the carter adminstration, some ego maniac decided his tank was super special so it had to be an M1 and so on. if you buy the spence book he explains it perty good.

" Army Vehicle Identification Numbers by Dennis Spence, ISBN-0-938242-10-5 " Brian in denver (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

GMC's VS Armored cars[edit]

Technically any vehicle mounting light C, or Heavy D artillery crosses into a motor carriage designation, so armored cars mounting a 37mm in an open turret would be an GMC, however it seems the bureaucracy favored a different set of numbers for these. so the M20 GMC may have been the M8 AC, and the M38 could be AC or GMC, who knows? Brian in denver (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning Pre-[edit]

I am trying to make it look the same (mostly to my tastes). Thoughts.

  • “T” numbers. Are these some type of development numbers? Are they needed after vehicle is standardized? They may go.
  • “G” numbers. I’m going to use them when they make things clearer only.
  • Ton numbers for tanks? Full tracked? Both may go.
  • Tank, medium or main battle? M47 up MBT. M26/46? M60A2?
  • Sub-headings? I’m leaving them alone just now, someone worked hard on them.
  • Variants. A sub-heading with numbers of relatives? Still leave the vehicle under it’s own number, just sub-head it under parent.
  • I didn't know there were "HMC"s, thought they all were "GMC". When did they become SPG/SPH?
    • There were "H"s, also "Multiple" GMCs. M52 was HMC in 1949, SPH in 1953
  • I used "Tank, main battle" instead of MBT, earlier all were "Tank". "APC" instead of "Carrier, arm pers" because APC is common.
  • M7, M45, M66 tanks? Is M85 "High speed trac" or "Prime mover"? Pretty high number for either, conversion? Is "Prime mover" a title, or a job for a tractor? Truck PMs are called "cargo".
  • I combined Armored and Scout cars. Same job, mostly name game.
  • ACs M5, 6 link to the same article. M5, 6, 7 not “M” standardized, not used by US. G list yes, M list no.
    • There were “H”s, sorry. M52 was HMC in ’49, SPH in ’51.
  • M3MGC, M4MMC, M13-17MGMC, M21MMC are all 1/2, I moved them from MC to 1/2.

This is rhetorical, I’ll do it in chunks, easy to delete, until stopped or bored. Sammy D III (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

    • wow another amature flushing years of research down the drain. frankly if you don't know what a "T"-number is then you might want to get a clue. and try to do some basic homework. like purchasing "searching for perfection". this kind of delete happy stuff is why I quit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I sort of hope you check back. I’m not sure why you are hostile, I babbled away about what I was doing.

T numbers: “Are they needed after vehicle is standardized?” The civil answer might be “yes, I think so”. I now know that they are test numbers, everything they test gets one, many test items and their number are discarded, correct?

I am not sure how much research you did, my main source, Doyle, David (2003). Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles. Kraus Publications. ISBN 0-87349-508-X. , shows T numbers for most standardized vehicles.

I AM an amateur, here purely for fun. It’s all yours. Sammy D III (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)