Talk:M59 armored personnel carrier

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Used in the Gulf War?

Huh?172.191.36.77 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no credible evidence of ARVN use of M-59 series APCs

I have seen a number of reports in the past that the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) had used M-59 series APCs, but this is not supported by the available photographic record, and no reputable source about armored vehicles used during the Vietnam War by the ARVN has ever mentioned the M-59 as having been used during the war by either the ARVN or the US. This article says they had over 800 of the vehicles, which is just not credible- they may indeed have had at any one time well over 800 M-113 series vehicles, of which Vietnam received hundreds from the US MAP program, but not the older M-59. I have a copy of the old Gervasi "Arsenal of Democracy" book, and it is replete with errors; however, some of the information is spot on. Other reports are incorrect, primarily as to what exactly the U.S. supplied to certain countries. An example would be the report that Pakistan took delivery of 200 M-60 series MBTs (they were actually original small hatch M-48s, not M-60s), or that Bolivia and Chile had taken delivery of respectively 120 and 270 M-48 series medium tanks, vehicles they never received. On the same page Bolivia was reported to have received 40 M-47 medium tanks, and Brazil was reported to have had as many as 680 of these vehicles! Neither of these reports are borne out by the facts, and Brazil never seems to have received any M-47s, despite some reports that she had taken delivery of some during the mid-1970s (however, Brazil did take delivery of a fairly large quantity of M-41 light tanks; perhaps these were the cause of the confusion. Indeed Brazil would become one of the most important users of the M-41 light tank). Israel was also reported to have 200 of the same vehicle, but Israel has never used the M-47 either. There are many other examples like these that I could cite. These easily debunked errors may have been made due to contradictory government records of overseas arms deliveries, or public reports of prospective planned deliveries of equipment which were subsequently denied or cancelled, or there was confusion as to exactly which specific weapon type was involved in the transfer.SASH155 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)SASH155, W. Thomas, Alex. VA, edited October 14th, 2024.[reply]