This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article and Technical (fighting vehicle) are essentially about the same topic. The only reason that one has a separate existence is because the term "technical" became fashionable and was associated with warfare in developing countries. The distinction is fake, and could be considered discriminatory (why not just name the other article "Gun truck manned by brown people"?). The two should be merged under this title. — Michael Z. 2007-06-25 23:52 Z
I don't think so. A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck. Maybe the gun truck will merge in Technical article. Ak70g2
BTW Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War (e.g. the italian AS 42 or the british 2pdr Portee). I see a distinction between these vehicles and the "technicals", the latter beeing a more improvised combination of vehicles and guns. I opt for keeping two articles (though they should be connected by a "see also"). -- Dabringer 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this article ( Technical (fighting vehicle)) is very distinct, and the information about the use and history of both the term and the type of vehicle is sufficiently unique it should be independent. Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described. Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary. Sylvank 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Its diffrent..
Technical | Gun truck |
---|---|
|
|
The history of such improvised fighting vehicles stems back through the era of the automobile and the machine gun. During World War II, the British Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was noted for their exploits in the deserts of Egypt, Libya and Chad on similar precursor vehicles. A popular American television series The Rat Patrol of the 1960s very clearly illustrated the use of Technical-style vehicles during WWII.
Are you trying to say that the term "Technical" as it applies to a fighting vehicle is racist? I'd disagree with that. Before I even started reading into this little debate I thought of what I considered each to be...
Skin color never occured to me. Then I read the articles. They don't seem to mention skin color either. They also seemed correct to me as per what each was defined as in my mind. I say no merge. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Both are ways of giving mobility to heavy weapons with conventional road vehicles, but I think they do describe two classes of vehicle. As the word Gun Truck is from the Vietnam War, that era's vehicle is IMO, the prototype - big slow, lumbering, heavily armoured and, essentially, a defensive weapon intended to offer protection from insurgent ambushes. Some are improvised, some aren't. I included the Easter Rising truck because it's armour allows it to fall under that defination even though it predates the name by about 50 years.
Technicals are different. They are high-speed offensive weapons. They're used by groups who can't get anything more sophisticated or by regular armies when it suits them tactically. I have no problem calling these jeeps
technicals even though they predate the word by 40 years. They're for high-speed, hit-and-run attacks and don't carry armour as that would slow them too much for them to be effective offensive weapons.
I think the technical/Gun truck thing is like comparing a tank with a self-propelled gun. To the layman, they're identical - armour, turret, gun and tracks. But when you look at it, you realize they are really very different as they're intended to do very different tasks on the battlefield.
Frankly, I'm even unhappy about the addition of Portees to this article as they're really just mobile anti-tank guns and should be under the 'See Also' category. Catsmeat 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well... You've come a long way since claiming that technical was a racist term ;-) My point is that, historically, technicals are improvised vehicles used by Somali warlords during the civil war in Somalia, using that term retroactively to describe vehicles used by the British Army during WWII does not seem appropriate.
What's more, if there was a universal, established definition for "technical", then maybe we could apply it to historical examples. But it seems like we're making this up as we go along, so I should be careful before calling something a technical, unless it's backed by a reliable source.
Anyway, I think we both agree that the SAS jeeps are relevant to the technical article. If you add an explanatory phrase at the beginning of the paragraph, something like "though they predate the use of the word technical by 50 years, the vehicles used by the British SAS during WWII represent an early example of improvised modifications to a light 4WD vehicle, providing additional firepower for offensive missions", I think the average reader will understand why they are included. Raoulduke47 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A jeep is a 1/4 ton truck? Well, if you say so... Just to clarify my position, I used to think there should be two articles, for want of a better solution. But then you proposed to create a new article, Improvised fighting vehicle, and then I saw that this was a better solution alltogether, as we could merge both articles into the new one. Just to be especially clear, I don't think we should avoid defining the difference between Ts and GTs simply because it's an awkward question. I think we should'nt bother, as any result we would come up with would fail WP:V and probably WP:OR as well, because as you say, no reliable source has ever studied this.
I've started Improvised fighting vehicle, but I think we should get some other opinions on this, maybe start a thread at the milhist project? Raoulduke47 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
However, the US Army's requirements were not formalised until July 11, 1940, when 135 U.S. automotive manufacturers were approached to submit a design conforming to their specifications, for a vehicle the World War II training manual TM 9-803 described as "... a general purpose, personnel, or cargo carrier especially adaptable for reconnaissance or command, and designated as 1/4-ton 4x4 Truck."
The technical article needs expansion, but does not need to be merged. A technical is an offensive vehicle while a gun tuck is a defensive. Also the histories of each are completly distinct as are the countries of use, which I believe has been pointed out. F-451 ( talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
250px|thumb This is a modern "Hibernyt" vehicle of the Polish army, this truck has no armour but I would clearly classify it as a gun truck (a truck with a gun, armour is not required). A technical is IMHO a vehicle smaller than a gun truck based on an off-road vehicle (I bet some technicals have armour). Mieciu K ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My thought on this is a Technical is a small ute/pickup or car converted by an improvised gun mount, and a gun truck is a military truck which has guns put on it either improvised or with regular mountings. That's generally what I've used to differentiate. I'm sure that a slightly less useful description is that if I see a vehicle with a gun on it, I know if it's a technical or a gun truck, they are 2 different things and despite the huge variety and range I _know_ which one a vehicle will be. no merge Macktheknifeau ( talk) 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to register my view, I've just here via African military innovation and change. I believe the two articles should not be merged, because the gun truck is essentially a expedient utilised by formed military forces when temporarily lacking required equipment, and the technical is an ad-hoc thing created by irregular forces. I believe the two concepts are separate enought to warrant separate articles. Regards Buckshot06( prof) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
While I think the racial aspect is being overplayed, I also think that merging has merit.
A Gun Truck is a tool - nothing more. Whether it is built by a Somali garage for a warlord, or built in Dubai by the US Army should not matter.
I would recommend merging the articles, with a disclaimer stating that the term Technical is a new term in general use as an arbitrary distinction to differentiate between two essentially similar types of combat vehicle, based primarily on who operates them at any given time. Clinkerbuilt ( talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Technicals" are specifically-civilian vehicles converted to a military-type purpose, usually by a paramilitary or pseudo-military force, i.e., most of the "Technicals" used since c.1970 are civilian pickup trucks - take the guns off, and they are back to being a civilian vehicle. This is distinctly different from a purpose-built military vehicle, even one not intended for combat. The term "Technical" evolved over time, and generally relates to the fact that such vehicles are "technically" both civilian and military, and may be encountered in either guise. -- Clinkerbuilt ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC).
the carriage of naval and garrison guns from the 17-19th century is also called a gun truck: http://www.rnmuseumshop.co.uk/acatalog/info_199.html
This article should be rightfully called "Armored Vehicles" or "Fighting Vehicles", but not "Gun Trucks" (except if you want to introduce Gun_truck_(disambiguation)). Seegras ( talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
First lets repeat definition: "A gun truck is an improvised fighting vehicle used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces..."
If it is improvised an then used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces then it could be improvised only by army logistics workshops. Nice example of that kind of improvisation is 518th Transportation Company(logistics unit) modification of 35 humvees and five M939 five-ton trucks in warfare terrain conditions in article part about Iraq War.
But before that in section about World War II we have a example of Armadillo armoured fighting vehicle which is not improvised but serial manufactured armoured fighting vehicle by Bedford Vehicles.
In my country we have a saying "Do not mix grandmothers and frogs".
If article focus should be improvised fighting vehicle then it should stay on that. Everything else is misguidance of readers.
And about headline. If focus stays on improvised fighting vehicle than it should have that in headline for example: Improvised Gun truck.
Article scope could be extended by adding militias, rebels or civilians Improvised Gun truck
It wasn't just the SAS that used armed trucks in the Western Desert during World War II - look at all the pictures in the article on the Long Range Desert Group. 24.61.4.237 ( talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gun truck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article and Technical (fighting vehicle) are essentially about the same topic. The only reason that one has a separate existence is because the term "technical" became fashionable and was associated with warfare in developing countries. The distinction is fake, and could be considered discriminatory (why not just name the other article "Gun truck manned by brown people"?). The two should be merged under this title. — Michael Z. 2007-06-25 23:52 Z
I don't think so. A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck. Maybe the gun truck will merge in Technical article. Ak70g2
BTW Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War (e.g. the italian AS 42 or the british 2pdr Portee). I see a distinction between these vehicles and the "technicals", the latter beeing a more improvised combination of vehicles and guns. I opt for keeping two articles (though they should be connected by a "see also"). -- Dabringer 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this article ( Technical (fighting vehicle)) is very distinct, and the information about the use and history of both the term and the type of vehicle is sufficiently unique it should be independent. Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described. Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary. Sylvank 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Its diffrent..
Technical | Gun truck |
---|---|
|
|
The history of such improvised fighting vehicles stems back through the era of the automobile and the machine gun. During World War II, the British Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was noted for their exploits in the deserts of Egypt, Libya and Chad on similar precursor vehicles. A popular American television series The Rat Patrol of the 1960s very clearly illustrated the use of Technical-style vehicles during WWII.
Are you trying to say that the term "Technical" as it applies to a fighting vehicle is racist? I'd disagree with that. Before I even started reading into this little debate I thought of what I considered each to be...
Skin color never occured to me. Then I read the articles. They don't seem to mention skin color either. They also seemed correct to me as per what each was defined as in my mind. I say no merge. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Both are ways of giving mobility to heavy weapons with conventional road vehicles, but I think they do describe two classes of vehicle. As the word Gun Truck is from the Vietnam War, that era's vehicle is IMO, the prototype - big slow, lumbering, heavily armoured and, essentially, a defensive weapon intended to offer protection from insurgent ambushes. Some are improvised, some aren't. I included the Easter Rising truck because it's armour allows it to fall under that defination even though it predates the name by about 50 years.
Technicals are different. They are high-speed offensive weapons. They're used by groups who can't get anything more sophisticated or by regular armies when it suits them tactically. I have no problem calling these jeeps
technicals even though they predate the word by 40 years. They're for high-speed, hit-and-run attacks and don't carry armour as that would slow them too much for them to be effective offensive weapons.
I think the technical/Gun truck thing is like comparing a tank with a self-propelled gun. To the layman, they're identical - armour, turret, gun and tracks. But when you look at it, you realize they are really very different as they're intended to do very different tasks on the battlefield.
Frankly, I'm even unhappy about the addition of Portees to this article as they're really just mobile anti-tank guns and should be under the 'See Also' category. Catsmeat 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well... You've come a long way since claiming that technical was a racist term ;-) My point is that, historically, technicals are improvised vehicles used by Somali warlords during the civil war in Somalia, using that term retroactively to describe vehicles used by the British Army during WWII does not seem appropriate.
What's more, if there was a universal, established definition for "technical", then maybe we could apply it to historical examples. But it seems like we're making this up as we go along, so I should be careful before calling something a technical, unless it's backed by a reliable source.
Anyway, I think we both agree that the SAS jeeps are relevant to the technical article. If you add an explanatory phrase at the beginning of the paragraph, something like "though they predate the use of the word technical by 50 years, the vehicles used by the British SAS during WWII represent an early example of improvised modifications to a light 4WD vehicle, providing additional firepower for offensive missions", I think the average reader will understand why they are included. Raoulduke47 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A jeep is a 1/4 ton truck? Well, if you say so... Just to clarify my position, I used to think there should be two articles, for want of a better solution. But then you proposed to create a new article, Improvised fighting vehicle, and then I saw that this was a better solution alltogether, as we could merge both articles into the new one. Just to be especially clear, I don't think we should avoid defining the difference between Ts and GTs simply because it's an awkward question. I think we should'nt bother, as any result we would come up with would fail WP:V and probably WP:OR as well, because as you say, no reliable source has ever studied this.
I've started Improvised fighting vehicle, but I think we should get some other opinions on this, maybe start a thread at the milhist project? Raoulduke47 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
However, the US Army's requirements were not formalised until July 11, 1940, when 135 U.S. automotive manufacturers were approached to submit a design conforming to their specifications, for a vehicle the World War II training manual TM 9-803 described as "... a general purpose, personnel, or cargo carrier especially adaptable for reconnaissance or command, and designated as 1/4-ton 4x4 Truck."
The technical article needs expansion, but does not need to be merged. A technical is an offensive vehicle while a gun tuck is a defensive. Also the histories of each are completly distinct as are the countries of use, which I believe has been pointed out. F-451 ( talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
250px|thumb This is a modern "Hibernyt" vehicle of the Polish army, this truck has no armour but I would clearly classify it as a gun truck (a truck with a gun, armour is not required). A technical is IMHO a vehicle smaller than a gun truck based on an off-road vehicle (I bet some technicals have armour). Mieciu K ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My thought on this is a Technical is a small ute/pickup or car converted by an improvised gun mount, and a gun truck is a military truck which has guns put on it either improvised or with regular mountings. That's generally what I've used to differentiate. I'm sure that a slightly less useful description is that if I see a vehicle with a gun on it, I know if it's a technical or a gun truck, they are 2 different things and despite the huge variety and range I _know_ which one a vehicle will be. no merge Macktheknifeau ( talk) 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to register my view, I've just here via African military innovation and change. I believe the two articles should not be merged, because the gun truck is essentially a expedient utilised by formed military forces when temporarily lacking required equipment, and the technical is an ad-hoc thing created by irregular forces. I believe the two concepts are separate enought to warrant separate articles. Regards Buckshot06( prof) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
While I think the racial aspect is being overplayed, I also think that merging has merit.
A Gun Truck is a tool - nothing more. Whether it is built by a Somali garage for a warlord, or built in Dubai by the US Army should not matter.
I would recommend merging the articles, with a disclaimer stating that the term Technical is a new term in general use as an arbitrary distinction to differentiate between two essentially similar types of combat vehicle, based primarily on who operates them at any given time. Clinkerbuilt ( talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Technicals" are specifically-civilian vehicles converted to a military-type purpose, usually by a paramilitary or pseudo-military force, i.e., most of the "Technicals" used since c.1970 are civilian pickup trucks - take the guns off, and they are back to being a civilian vehicle. This is distinctly different from a purpose-built military vehicle, even one not intended for combat. The term "Technical" evolved over time, and generally relates to the fact that such vehicles are "technically" both civilian and military, and may be encountered in either guise. -- Clinkerbuilt ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC).
the carriage of naval and garrison guns from the 17-19th century is also called a gun truck: http://www.rnmuseumshop.co.uk/acatalog/info_199.html
This article should be rightfully called "Armored Vehicles" or "Fighting Vehicles", but not "Gun Trucks" (except if you want to introduce Gun_truck_(disambiguation)). Seegras ( talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
First lets repeat definition: "A gun truck is an improvised fighting vehicle used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces..."
If it is improvised an then used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces then it could be improvised only by army logistics workshops. Nice example of that kind of improvisation is 518th Transportation Company(logistics unit) modification of 35 humvees and five M939 five-ton trucks in warfare terrain conditions in article part about Iraq War.
But before that in section about World War II we have a example of Armadillo armoured fighting vehicle which is not improvised but serial manufactured armoured fighting vehicle by Bedford Vehicles.
In my country we have a saying "Do not mix grandmothers and frogs".
If article focus should be improvised fighting vehicle then it should stay on that. Everything else is misguidance of readers.
And about headline. If focus stays on improvised fighting vehicle than it should have that in headline for example: Improvised Gun truck.
Article scope could be extended by adding militias, rebels or civilians Improvised Gun truck
It wasn't just the SAS that used armed trucks in the Western Desert during World War II - look at all the pictures in the article on the Long Range Desert Group. 24.61.4.237 ( talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gun truck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)