SAC-SWG-ENUM Archives

February 2018

SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Ronnfeldt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:12:06 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
Now this is an interesting subject.... What is the difference between:

Class 2 - Armored Fighting Vehicle
Class 3 - Armored Utility Vehicle

To me, it may often come down to the vehicle utilisation....

What I have tried to do in Rev A, is to split the Bison and the M113 into both categories, depending on configuration.

I looked at the Coyote vehicles, and as the weapon doesn't change (ie still has a big gun that can destroy things) I think it should remain in the fighting vehicle class.

Also, the RG-31 is a variant of the South African RG-31 Nyala, so it should keep the variant flag (ie has lots of Canadian modifications).

I will endeavour to also look at the other countries Class 2 and Class 3 entries, to see if there are other occurrences where utility use has been listed under fighting.

Regards,

David Ronnfeldt


From: SAC-SWG-ENUM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marrou, Lance R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: CR to add Canadian Land Vehicles

Some comments for discussion:

• The MOWAG and Piranha V are in the Armored Utility Vehicle Category (3), not Armored Fighting Vehicle (2). So, maybe take a look at this with respect to the Bison.
• Also, maybe we could “clean up” some of these same vehicle families. I don’t think the proper initial enumeration was done and now they’re getting kind of messy (multiple countries, not the same structure, etc.). I care less that they’re multiple countries and more that if essentially the same vehicle is represented in multiple countries, at least we’re using the same Category. The M113A2 is in Category 2, so I think that one’s probably okay. But, as a counterpoint, look at AUS fitter vehicles.
• Should the RG-31 be a variant off the SA one?
• I would put the RWS acronym after the words. I know this was copied from Wikipedia like that, but Wikipedia is wrong, too (it did it this way because of the link).

Lance Marrou, Leidos, [log in to unmask]
12901 Science Drive, Orlando, Florida USA 32826, o: 407.243.3710


-----Original Message-----
From: SAC-SWG-ENUM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Ronnfeldt
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL: CR to add Canadian Land Vehicles

I am doing a review of the MCL, and have found the following Canadian land vehicles that are listed in the MCL that should be listed in the Enumerations list.

Regards,

David Ronnfeldt

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1


########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2