Talk:Gun truck

Merge from Technical (fighting vehicle)

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)

No. basically distinct stuff. SYSS Mouse 01:43, 15 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..

Hm. No factual information or references explaining the distinction. The stated reasons I can glean from the objections above:

1. Ak70g2: "A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck"—meaning a gun truck is a type of technical, although the defining characteristics aren't stated. Reference? [I would disagree: a technical is a truck with a gun; a kind of gun truck.]
2. Dabringer: "Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War" [implying that technicals are a newer phenomenon? Actually, according to our article Gun truck, they have been used since 1916]. The name "technical" is new, but what is so new about these trucks with guns?
3. Dabringer: "'Technicals' ... beeing a more improvised combination"—but our article says that a gun truck is also "an improvised military armored vehicle". Is a "technical" defined as more improvised than a "gun truck"? How do you define the amount of improvisation? This is a meaningless distinction, without any references to support it.
4. Sylvank: "Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described"—and who decided to describe them in separate articles? Please describe the respective "types of groups" and purposes of technicals and gun trucks.
5. Sylvank: "Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary"—I agree with the classification, but I argue that the merge is necessary, unless somebody can actually mention a real characteristic distinguishing technicals from other trucks with mounted guns.

Number 4 is the only objection relying on actual facts. But it doesn't mention the specific facts it relies on. Which "types of groups", and for what "different purposes"? "Local irregular military forces"? Is "local" really another word for "brown"?

I've looked through all of the references in Technical. There is no hard definition. Technicals are only described as:

• "Armored cars with weapons on them"
• "Battlewagons mounted with heavy weapons"
• "Four-wheel-drive vehicles bristling with weapons"
• "Battlewagons"
• "Trucks mounted with machine guns"
• "Jeeps with heavy machineguns mounted on the back"
• "Pickup trucks with machine guns or anti-tank weapons mounted on the back"
• "Armed vehicles"
• "Four-door Nissan pickup trucks with special machine gun mounts attached to the truck bed were modified by Iraqi contractors north of the capital city at the Taji Military Training Base"

Trucks with guns. Gun trucks. Sometimes armoured. Nothing about certain types of people. Nothing about the vehicles' purpose in the definitions, with one exception.

Only a single "reference" goes mentions the people who use technicals: the anonymous, unreferenced article at bellum.nu.[1] So maybe it is the people who define the difference between a "gun truck" and a "technical":

• "an improvised fighting vehicle, usually used by a local irregular para-military forces and guerilla fractions [sic]. The concept imitates the armed terrain vehicles used by a traditional military force (like the Light Strike Vehicles) and is basically used in the same manner or as an form [sic] of improvised armed troop carrier."

Our articles' definitions:

• A gun truck is an improvised military armored vehicle, based on a conventional cargo truck, that is able to carry a large weight of weapons and armor
• A technical is an improvised fighting vehicle, typically by a local irregular military force and usually being a modified civilian vehicle or other similar machine.

What's the difference? When a gun truck is used "by a local irregular military force", it turns into a "technical"?

Let's look further for this distinction of people and purposes.

Examples cited in Wikipedia articles

Technical

Gun truck

"In 1987, technicals from Chad" "in the 1990s Somali Civil War" "at the defeat of the militia of warlord Abdi Qeybdid at the Second Battle of Mogadishu" "President of Puntland, General Adde Musa personally led 50 battlewagons to Galkayo to confront the Islamists" [irregular?] "US Special Forces are known to use technicals for patrol of the rugged terrain of Afghanistan." [not local or irregular] "The Taliban also used technicals while they were in power." [not irregulars] "Technicals were used by Iraqi forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq" [not irregulars] "Technicals saw use by Iraqi insurgents" "The Coalition also supplied technicals to the Iraqi police." [not irregulars] "Private military contractors also use technicals" [not local or irregular]

"British Army in Dublin during the Easter Rising in 1916" "World War II ... allied ... and italian forces ... in northern africa" "During the Vietnam War,... the [United States] Army's 8th Transportation Group ... fitted two-and-a-half-ton trucks with sand bags and pairs of M60 machine guns to act as convoy escorts "The conditions of the Iraq War have led to the re-invention of the gun truck. [U.S.] M939 Trucks were initially equipped with improvised 'Hillbilly armor'"

Brown people in column A, even when they are part of a national military and the vehicles are made by white people. Only white people in column B. There are two exceptions in col A: "in order to let Special Operation Forces operate under cover" and "those who think that it is all about steroids and weapons," according to the cited references. So white people may use technicals when they are trying to look like brown people, or when they are acting like arseholes.

The article Technical also offers some historical background about "such fighting vehicles", but these white-operated machines are referred to as "precursor vehicles" or "Technical-style vehicles".

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.

But as we see from all of the examples above, improvised gun trucks have been used by various forces for as long as there have been trucks (including truck-based tachankas of the Russian Civil War). They have been used by white and dark people, in insurgencies, police forces, special forces, and national militaries. The definition "typically by a local irregular military force" is false.

Please don't become enamoured with the image of Third-World "warlords" and their "battlewagons". "Technical" is simply a term that happened to become fashionable to use for improvised gun trucks in a certain time and place. A truck with a gun is a "gun truck" and its distinction from a "technical" is not real.

To insist that "technical" is not just another term for gun truck, but a different thing belonging in its own article is to unwittingly tie the definition to race. Don't define a kind of gun truck as a "technical" just because it is presumed to be used by "different types of groups" who are considered less civilized, or non-Western, or non-white.

Let's just merge the articles and find some more references. —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 07:35 Z

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...

• A Gun Truck is an armored vehicle used by formal military forces and manufactured for that purpose (ie. warfare).
• A Technical is a civilian truck used by non-formal military, or civilian combatants, and manufactured for civilian use (ie. non-warfare).

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)

Then how is a technical different from a gun truck? Our articles have to reflect what reliable, verifiable sources say, not what is defined "in our minds". —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 14:53 Z

I described the difference above, and the articles do read that way. The point of "defined in my mind" was to illustrate that when considering the definition of "technical" as a noun, skin color didn't factor into my mental image. It was not to say that articles should be written that way.

But you don't sound like you're going to change your mind, and I don't expect that I will change mine without fresh arguments. As such I will pay attention but I don't think I'll be debating this much more. The "vote" as near as I can tell is 5 to 1 against merging. Certainly not final yet, but if there isn't more support in a week or so I expect that the merge tag will go away. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I could change my mind, but it is unlikely to happen without a single verifiable source supporting the counter-argument.

Nor am I convinced by your definitions. They contradict the text of the articles.

1. Physical description: you say a "gun truck" is purpose-made, but the article says it is improvised, as are all of the examples which comprise its text. I don't see any substantial physical difference between the gun trucks and technicals described in the articles, nor is there a reliable source describing one.
2. Employment: you also define the difference as the use by "non-formal military, or civilian combatants", as opposed to "formal military forces". But according to our article, technicals were used by the forces of the President of Puntland, U.S. Special Forces, the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen, Iraqi police (purpose-built technicals), and U.S. military contractors. Were these examples of gun trucks and not technicals? Again, there is no reliable source supporting this definition.

Seriously, I would like a better indication of where the term "technical" belongs. If there is a recent dictionary definition in the OED or elsewhere, I would like to see it. If you think that the definition of gun truck should be modified, or if you want to reformulate your definitions to better explain the current articles, that would be great to. But so far, I don't see justification for Technical as a separate article from Gun truck. —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 17:31 Z

Hmmm... upon another look I discover you are right about the intro to Gun Truck. It should be changed I think. My vote is still for two spereate and distinct articles. But I think that maybe they should be reworked to fit my definitions (ie. improvised vs. purpose-built, civilian vs. military). I am fully aware how that sounds, and I'm NOT saying we should work articles to fit my reality. That'd be silly. I'm just saying that it seems to me that that IS reality. They're two different things. You can't call a Humvee a Technical, and you can't call a Nissan pick-up with a machine gun mounted in it a Humvee. They're different.

As to a definition, Princeton's WordNet has one. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start. The WordNet definition is very spare, and doesn't mention people or purpose, or even improvised nature: "a pickup truck with a gun mounted on it".

Since you are talking about the distinct concept of purpose-built gun trucks, I would suggest starting a new article from references.

But in the meantime, we have two article about improvised wheeled combat vehicles to deal with. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 14:38 Z

I don't think we need a third article, and I don't think these need to be merged. Reworked a bit maybe. Have at it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing adding a third article, I'm proposing merging these two articles about improvised gun trucks. There are still zero reliable references which so much as hint that a technical is a distinct entity. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 19:04 Z

I've done a fair bit of the editing on this article (both as catsmeat and 139.222.5.228 when I couldn't be bothered logging in). I'm not in any way a military guru, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion on the Technical/Gun truck thing.

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)

"Portee", maybe a gun truck?

File:D8m9caf00.jpg

Technical?

This isn't even based on anecdotes, but stereotypes. I'd like to see some real references supporting the definitions, and the tactics described.

So technicals are not used defensively? The 2-1/2 ton trucks without heavy armour—since they're not "slow and lumbering", are they still considered "gun trucks"? Shall we add the SAS desert rats photo and label it "Technical of 1942"? —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 05:56 Z —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

You seem to be confusing the SAS with the 7th Armoured division, nicknamed "the desert rats". Anyway, the SAS used their jeeps in a unconventional manner, practising hit-and-run tactics. They were certainly the ancestors of what are today called technicals. Raoulduke47 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Image:Special Air Service in North Africa E 21337.jpg. What makes the pictured vehicles "ancestors" of technicals: by the definition, they are technicals, aren't they? Do you object to my adding that photo to Technical with the caption "Technicals of 1942", and adding a paragraph about the WWII technicals of the SAS and 7th Armoured? —Michael Z. 2007-09-15 23:15 Z

Yes I think it would be a very good idea to add that photo, and maybe write something about the SAS jeeps in the technical article. Simply, as the term "technical" was coined in the 1990's, using it for WWII vehicle would be an anachronism, IMO. I think they should be called "ancestors" or "predecessors" of modern technicals. (more info on SAS jeeps:[2], [3])

As for the 2pdr and 6pdr portees, as the article says, they were considered tank destroyers and should probably not go in either article. Raoulduke47 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Technicals were used by the British SAS during the Second World War

Why is using the term an anachronism? It isn't WWII any more, so if they fall under the definition of technicals, why not refer to them as such? Calling them "ancestors" or "predecessors" implies that they are somehow different, so that may be confusing for the reader. —Michael Z. 2007-09-17 17:00 Z

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)

I admit, I still believe that there is no, um, technical distinction between "gun trucks" and "technicals"—and I think the the difference is an artificial one, based largely on stereotypes about the people using them and the imagined differences in how they are used (which is also not well attested by sources). As you say, we are making this up, because there isn't much expert writing to rely on, only journalism and some headline quotations.

I do think that one article about improvised combat trucks would be much stronger than these two separate ones, which currently avoid providing a broad survey. Come to think of it, maybe it would be worth writing a separate summary article for category:improvised armoured fighting vehicles. Since they're not all really armoured, how does improvised fighting vehicles sound? —Michael Z. 2007-09-17 23:58 Z

Yeah, it sounds good! It would avoid the awkward question of defining what is a gun truck, a technical, a gun wagon etc... and squeezing as many examples as possible into each article. It would also avoid using modern military jargon for historical vehicles. If the article were divided into chronological sections, then each example could be fitted into its appropriate timeframe. I think you've found the solution. -- Raoulduke47 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I worked a link to gun truck into the introductory paragraph of technical (fighting vehicle), instead of having it dangle with the see alsos. This implies a certain relationship between GT's and T's, so please have a look. As long as the question remains awkward, then the status of these two separate articles is slightly suspect, so we may as well start to deal with it.

I'll try to start the new article sometime in the next days, but feel free to take the initiative. —Michael Z. 2007-09-18 15:28 Z

"a technical is typically a gun truck". I'm not sure about this. Right now the articles are about two different things, that kind of assertion is more confusing than helpful. And also, a technical is not necessarily a truck, as it can be based on any 4WD vehicle, such as a Land Rover, that isn't a truck.Raoulduke47 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This assertion was made a few times early on this talk page, so I thought it would be reasonably safe. In my opinion, jeeps and Land Rovers are small, four-wheel-drive trucks (as opposed to cars)—a military jeep is a 1/4-ton truck.

Otherwise, how would you link to gun truck within the text of technical? Really, if we can't even allude to the relationship between the two in a simple sentence, any sentence, then we have no business stating so categorically that they are two different things.. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 16:29 Z

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)

Regarding 1/4-ton trucks, it wasn't too uncommon to refer to jeeps as trucks in the Canadian military, including actual Jeep-branded jeeps and German-made Iltises. The article jeep cites a US military requirement:

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."

I don't think "shouldn't bother" is really an acceptable solution to the conundrum. If the definitions aren't supported by reliable sources, then the separate articles under these titles don't belong in Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the OED had a definition of technical which could help resolve the question.

Good job starting the umbrella article. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-09-30 07:02 Z