Talk:Technical (vehicle)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Iraqi Use

Someone need to update the entry for technical with the new info about the wide use of technicals by the fedayeen in the Iraq campaign of 2003.

Updated as requested. --Petercorless 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tachanka and other precursors to the modern technical

Also, a comparison with the horse-driven Russian tachanka contraption of the Civil war period (1917-1920s) would be interesting, especially in terms of military tactics and the dual use (civil and military). --Unsigned

More directly, I made a comparison to the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG). --Petercorless 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tactics, use in Iraq separate arguments from "Gunvee"

Regarding the technical+ATGM belief, go ahead and put it in the article with proper references. However, I don’t see how the wider issue of irregular warfare fits in here. As for the reason why the Iraqis used technicals, you didn’t cite it. You cited somebody mentioning a story in an interview, but this only established the existence of the anecdote, not its factuality. (And even if it’s true, it still lacks information. Who made the decision? Which branches of the military actually used technicals?) If the general you mentioned was more specific, then his testimony is a better citation. —xyzzy_n 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to argue against the entire point of an article about "technicals" if you want to ignore the tactical reasons they exist in the first place. I did cite both the Republican Guard and Fedayeen used technicals. The decision was made by Saddam:

Did Saddam see Blackhawk Down? Yes, he did and, in fact, he liked the movie so much that he even went so far as to equip Fedayeen units with white SUVs and white pickups, trying to mimic the technicals that he thought were the reasons why the American forces left. --Scales, Maj. Gen. Robert Jr., USA, Ret., Former Commandant, Army War College, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM: OPERATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION, OCTOBER 21, 2003

And that contradicts the story from the other quote, where ‘Saddam’s two sons’ were reported to have made the decision. —xyzzy_n 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated "Gun-vee"

Petercorless, your insistence on keeping the term Gun-vee is just plain wrong. Crew served weapons mounted atop Humvees have been in use for as long as the Humvee has existed. This was not a response to the insurgency as you claim but rather standard procedure. This is a clear case of someone trying to invent a term and using wikipedia to bolster their claims, therefore its getting deleted again. No one argues keeping it except for you, take a hint. --MattHunter 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete the entry on the US creation of improvised "technicals" in Iraq without discussion. If you have objections, please add your concerns here. --Petercorless 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I again reinstated the quote about "Gun-vees" and also put back in the blockquote text for Jed Babbin. Please do not vandalize! --Petercorless 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it without reading this. Could you please explain who exactly uses the term ‘gun-vee’ outside of a handful of image captions and the article?

As for Babbin, well… I called the quote stupid and I stand by that. It makes as much sense as saying that an M1A1 is a really lousy match against the Kirov, i. e. it’s technically true, fairly indisputable and looks relevant, but has absolutely no practical influence on the subject matter (a tank does not fight battlecruisers and a technical does not fight MBTs or fighter-bombers). —xyzzy_n 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gunvee: Apparently the troops themselves, as in this quote: "I worked out of Mosul, but I've seen Iraq from Tikrit up to Dahuk near Turkey. In that time, I did 95% of it in a two gunvee six man convoy." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248016/posts]

As for the point regarding them not being able to stand up against tanks, it was also to illustrate their weakness, as was also recently displayed in the Somali war, where they were toasted by T-55s. In comparison to the Libya-Chad War, where they did rather well. This was to illustrate how, if they had tactical initiative and surprise, they could do well if they had sufficient AT assets. But when on the defensive, and without sufficient AT assets (ATGMs, air power, etc.), they did not fare well. In this case, MBTs did and do and will fight technicals. This was to show the 'scissors-paper-rock' fortes and foibles of their deployment vs. other weapon systems.

Again, please STOP vandalizing my posts without first discussing the merits of the entries here. --Petercorless 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That quote is one of 19 hits for ‘gunvee’ (excepting those related to some guy on eBay). There are some more hits for ‘gun-vee’, but less than 100 total relevant hits. The term has practically no web presence; does it appear anywhere in print? (Wikipedia does document some military jargon, but this term doesn’t seem to have the kind of cultural importance it would take to put it into any kind of context.)

As for weaknesses, maybe you would like to compare them to nukes, as well? It’s trivial that for almost any weapon or vehicle there is a superior weapon or vehicle. It makes sense to document the exceptions, but not vice versa. If you can write about specific tactics and countermeasures, you should definitely do so (maybe making the one paragraph in the introduction dealing with this matter a separate section). That’s where actual examples would be useful. However, ‘let’s aimlessly rush expendable people and materiel to be slaughtered so the enemy is delayed by a day’ is not a tactic (at least not one specific to technicals) and putting Babbin’s comparison into the article falsely suggests the opposite.

If the Iraqis had had decent (or, for that matter, any) air support against American tanks, that would still be an issue for aviation and tank articles rather than this one. Unless, of course, they would have used some kind of tactic specific to technicals, like driving up to the Abraham Lincoln and firing MANPADS at its aircraft. ;)

By the way, please check WP:-( for a definition of vandalism… I hope you’ll find that my (so far single) edit to the article does not meet those criteria. —xyzzy_n 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize about misconstruing your efforts as vandalism. Let's try to talk through issues.

1. "Technicals" are, by their nature, a term of slang/jargon. Manufacturers do not generally "build" technicals off an assembly line. They are cobbled together. The origin of the term itself was slang/jargon. So refutations based on the dismissal of slang/jargon are irrelevant since we are documenting a term of military slang/jargon in the first place.

2. The term "Gunvee" and the article citation was to demonstrate US troops were cobbling together their own technicals in Iraq, and/or referring to their HMMWV Armament Carriers as such. Just as the term "battlewagon," "gunwagon," or "gunship," were cited as synonyms. To prejudice this term by deleting it was prejudicial.

3. The section has been deleted more than once without discussion.

4. The "technical vs. tank" debate merited discussion of tactics, as it was a held belief technicals + ATGMs could defeat a tank force after the Battle of Fada, and irregular forces could stand up against conventional forces after the Battle of Mogadishu, but these beliefs were repudiated in OIF and recently Somalia. The issue was one of generational warfare, 3rd generation vs. 4th generation. It would be akin to a discussion of infantry with gunpowder weapons vs. armored knights. I do not care to discuss an entire matrix of comparisons. The comparison of a technical to a nuclear bomb is ludicrous, hyperbolic and reductio ad absurdum.

5. I cited the reasoning of Saddam's adoption of their use specifically after the release of the movie "Black Hawk Down." If you want, I can also cite the congressional testimony by a general if need be. Why this element of discussion was deleted was never explained.

6. I cited a quote from the movie Road Warrior (the documentary of Mogadishu) to illustrate their tactical use, but that too was deleted. --Petercorless 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are jargon terms worth documenting, and there’s the rest. As the article itself shows, the term ‘technical’ is used fairly frequently. I have not bothered to check whether this is the case for the other terms. I did check ‘gunvee’ and it is not nearly as wide-spread, or wide-spread at all. I do not doubt that some people use it, but I don’t see any residual effect from that use (and what Wikipedia documents is, effectively, written stuff, not spoken jargon).

I have made a clarification to show that a design-by-purpose armament carrier is not technically a "technical." --Petercorless 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it technically doesn't below in this article then does it? Also your term Gun-vee is supported by no one but yourself and one photo caption therefor not widespread use, thus Gunvee segment is getting deleted again here and on the HMMWV article --MattHunter 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Somalianwar06.jpg

Image:Somalianwar06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:D8m9caf00.jpg

The image Image:D8m9caf00.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Combat history

The history of such improvised fighting vehicles stems back through the era of the automobile and the machine gun, and even earlier, to the horse-drawn tachanka of eastern Europe. During World War II, the British Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) were 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.

The term "technical" was fairly specific to African conflicts. While the idea may have been borrowed from the LRDG, I doubt tachankas had any influence on their use :) What was probably more influential were the thousands of HMG armed Jeeps sold into Africa after the Second World War, and no longer available by the 70s. I also don't know if the African revolutionaries were ardent watchers of The Rat Patrol for any tactical hint :) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for a single statement mentioned above? Apparently HMG-armed jeeps are purpose-built military vehicles, so they are not technicals, right? —Michael Z. 2008-06-15 04:26 z

The only difference between a "technical" and a US Army issue Jeep with a .50cal is their place of manufacture. The conversion is not that difficult, and the humble Jeep started its life as a civilian vehicle and not a military one. I have no idea if any Africans ever got their hands on the LRDG vehicles, but I seem to think they went to Italy later. BTW, US Jeeps were initially supplied to African armies from the Soviet Union--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern chariots?

The whole idea of technicals, as described by this article, seems to me to resemble ancient chariots: fast and powerful, but rather light on the defensive. Is anyone aware of reliable sources that have made such a comparison? Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, chariots were used in formation, and light reconnaissance vehicles, which is what they are in conventional armies, are not. The modern descendant of the chariot was the Russian tachanka, but they were used as light mobile artillery, deploying just like the horse artillery. Technicals are just the improvisation for carting heavy infantry weapons like heavy machine guns and recoilless rifles around, but not in accordance with any particular doctrine. Chariots relied on physical shock rather then the fire-power, which was negligible, while with horse artillery, and the technicals it is the fire-power that counts, notably the ability to punch through often flimsy structures from the perspective of the weapons used on them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They are more like moder War Horses. In medieval ages, a warlord power was measured with the number of war horses he owned. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Modified misleading sentence about ramming incident

In the section on Sudan, the article stated:

African peace-keepers, using lightly-armed AVGP armored vehicles have resorted to ramming more heavily armed Sudanese technicals.[20]

The reference is to this cached article. As you can see by actually reading the reference, the previous version is a pretty severe distortion, for at least 3 reasons:

1. The phrasing "African peace-keepers ... have resorted to ... " suggests that it is an on-going practice. In fact the reference cites just a single instance, and implies that it was surprising (The AU driver ... seems to have taken his own initiative. By all accounts, AMIS rarely conducted operations in a vigous [sic] fashion.)
2. This phrasing also strongly suggests that ramming was a deliberate tactical decision. In fact the reference doesn't make this clear at all. From the reference's footnotes: in hot pursuit, ... AVGP slammed into and rolled over the truck which suggests it may even have been an accident, albeit one which probably went far worse for the 1 ton unarmoured pickup than for the 11 ton armoured vehicle.
3. lightly-armed AVGP ... resorted to ramming more heavily armed Sudanese technicals (emphasis added) suggests that the AVGPs were badly out-gunned by the technicals. In fact this is the opposite of the truth. The Grizzly AVGP's armament is a .50 BMG heavy machine gun and a 7.62 mm GPMG, which is marginally more firepower than most technicals. But the bigger difference is that the Grizzly is sufficiently well protected from HMG fire that it could chase this technical at close range whilst simply ignoring its fire, whereas one well-aimed burst from either of those guns into the technical would have destroyed it. Notably, light armoured vehicles are usually considered to trade weaker protection for higher mobility, but as seen in this case the Grizzly could also chase down the technical, which was outclassed on every point. So assuming it wasn't an accident why did the Grizzly ram this helpless prey and its probably terrified crew instead of just shooting it? Because the AVGP's guns jammed. Note that both guns (which are completely independent systems) are said to have jammed. There are a few somewhat improbable explanations for such a coincidence, but the most likely explanation is operator error -- particularly as the same reference had earlier observed that many AMIS armoured vehicle crews were only marginally well trained.

If we strip out the misleading sections, and the speculation about motives and effects, what we are left with is something like "on at least one occasion, a light armoured vehicle ran into a technical" which is too trite to bother reporting. However, one aspect that is quite interesting in this incident, and I think worth keeping the reference for, is that contrary to a widespread perception the Grizzly had superior mobility as well as superior combat power. Thus I amended the sentence to say that rather than simply deleting it. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Toyota Tacoma in Iraq?

I was in Iraq from 2003, and I saw very few Toyota Tacomas from the US. There were, however, large numbers of Ford Rangers and Toyota Hilux, especially the Hilux Diesel, and some number of Land Cruiser LM78 pickups. The lack of a Diesel compact pickup in the US means most of the COTS pickups used in a "tactical" role (for which Diesel is far superior) were purchased in the Gulf or otherwise outside the US -- the US maintained a large presence in the Gulf from the end of the Gulf War (I) until Iraq, so there was plenty of opportunity to purchase trucks.

Generally these trucks didn't have permanently mounted weapons, although on some a pintle compatible with standard weapons was welded to the light bar, or a pedestal mount was welded in the bed. The most common modifications included adding tow straps mounted to the front, extra spare tires, and in some cases, a rear-facing seat with sling-supported M249 or M240B, and sometimes turning the crew cab rear seats sideways to support side gunners. There were also radios (CINCGARS or others, including commercial VHF), various ECM/ECCM gear (which evolved over time, mainly to defeat the IED threat), and C4I systems like Blue Force Tracker (relatively rare in retrofitted commercial vehicles).

Larger pickups (F-150, Silverado, etc.), especially in Diesel variants, were used extensively as well (more in Iraq than in Afghanistan, due to road width) -- these larger trucks were more likely to include welded armor in the crew compartment, and often a welded box containing a turret and weapons mount in the rear.

There was also extensive use of "low profile" vehicles, vehicles common to the civilian community, such as BMW 5-series E34 (1991-1996) sedans, VW Passats made in Brazil in the mid-1980s ("Brasilis"), Toyota Crown Cressida, etc. These were more often used by tier 1 and 2 special operations forces than by regular military units or PMCs. These were much less retrofitted than the pickup-truck based vehicles, with the main goal being to blend into civilian traffic.

Ryan (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Popularity of the Toyota Hilux

• Ravi Somaiya, 14 October 2010, Guerrilla Trucks: Why Rebel Groups Love the Toyota Hilux, Newsweek

This article might be of relevance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible fair use image of Somalian technical image

The file is used on this page and 3 others, but it might not constitute fair use for all 4 pages (furthermore, specific fair use rationales are missing). Feel free to comment at File_talk:D8m9caf00.jpg. L.tak (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

¿Why Not?

The term technical describing such a vehicle originated in Somalia in the early 1990s. Barred from bringing in private security, non-governmental organizations hired local gunmen to protect their personnel, using money defined as "technical assistance grants".

Not that I don’t believe this section, but it would help to clarify why they are barred from hiring private security, since the gunmen they hired are private security (and of questionable reliability). The difference, other than sematical, doesn’t seem to exist. A REDDSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.18.118 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical (vehicle) terminology is not well used if you look content and description this article contains. Instead Technical which is broader term and used in other areas I would call it "Car mounted gun vehicle" to be more descriptive as it already in use and in context with article content. Usual's Tehnical vehicle terminology in military use is about some vehicle's used as workshop for repairing weapons, electronics, vehicles etc. Eventually fire department vehicle's, munition delivery vehicle, fuel cistern or something like that could be also Technical vehicle's. It is common to use term Technical inspection for vehicles and Vehicle System Technical Guide. Technical us in common use to describe Specification (technical standard) or engineering characteristics. See more on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technical

RfC: Headline and focus of article?

Should the article focus and/or headline be changed? Loesorion (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First focus of this article and headline is based on so called Somalian "Technical" term and their use of improvised cars for fighting purpose. But after that article used many terms and content that is not within his first scope.

As said before in talk about "Change of article headline":

"Article in content uses many vehicles like Willys M38A1, Mitsubishi Type 73 Light which are not called "Technical" by any means by their users and producers. I could add more content to this article but headlines is not good and it would be promoting some term which is not in common use in context of article. There is also use of cars with mounted guns like improvised fighting vehicles before WWII and even in 19 century like Davidson-Duryea Light 4-Wheeled Car and non of them is "Technical".

It is important that article is staying on focus and don't mix content that will misguide readers.

And focus is lost by misusing term "Improvised": "To conclude "Improvised" fighting vehicle is something ad hoc modified, added or upgraded by civilians or rebels or some unofficial army like guerrilla or resistant movement and when talked about official army it is done by army workshops. It is usualy small number of vehicles and it is not serial production of any kind."

There is a few solutions for this article:

• 1 - article could be renamed to:"Improvised car mounted gun" and content of article that describes armed cars in serial production by their respected manufacturers should be removed. Article focus should stay on cars ad hoc modified, added or upgraded by civilians or rebels or some unofficial army like guerrilla or resistant movement or army workshops with weapons added.
• 2 - article could be renamed to: "Somalian "Technical" vehicle" and content of article should be based on Somalians use of improvised cars with weapons mounted. Everything else should be deleted.

My personal opinion is that most reasonable solution is 1. Loesorion (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The page is on the converted pick-up with a mounted gun in the back, which is known colloquially as the "Technical". The latter has been used in various global conflicts; most recently, in Syria and Libya (c.f. [1]), not just in Somalia. This is the common name for the vehicle, so that is what the page is named per WP:COMMONNAME. Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you about name of this article. First and foremost common name in Somalia is not common name in world, and this article is not limited to Somalia. Prior Somalia there was examples of using improvised cars with mounted weapons and tht have not been caled Technical. It is wrong that Wikipedia become worldwide promotional site about some acronym used only in one country and that we promote in English language something that is translation from Arabic.

Also if you google for word "technical" 1 billion results will show up and in first 100 results except this Wikipedia article that shows as first(because of popularity of Wikipedia) are about something else in conjunction with worldwide use of technical term and not this article. It is clear that there is promotional character in name of this article and that is misspoken. One more example is if we type "technical vehicle" in google there 347 million results and most clearly point to something else except first two results related to this article in Wikipedia - Technical(vehicle). How do you explain that? And yourself are saying "colloquially" that means it is informal or not official and according to article it is local. So why are we spreading something local and advertising it like it is worldwide and common-name?

Lets see here http://car-bud.com.pl/technical-vehicle-for-7-persons.html what are in Poland technical vehicles. Or here in UK[2]. In many countries and special in English language spoken it is normal to say that we are going to inspect vehicle technically or Technical vehicle inspection. For example go to [3]. All this just point that use of Technical is not some Somalia specialty and in Somalia English is not even formal language so how English wor can became Somalian.

And to conclude this lets see what if type in google Arabic words مركبة التقنية for Technical vehicle? First result is this http://www.elkhabar.com/ar/watan/323127.html and if you use google translate(if we don't know Arabic) we will see that page is talking about buses. So in Arabic spoken language countries technical vehicles are buses. In this article there is not a single reference to be presented about massive use in Arabic world of technical vehicle term for improvised fighting vehicle. Only place for that is Wikipedia. And in this article[4] it is spoken in arabic when using term Technical vehicle on Arabic language about technical inspection for vehicles on same way like in most countries in world.

To me its seems like if someone needs page rank in google it is enough to create page like this and then link it to others to promote some personal interest.

This article name is promotional to Somalia acronym and it is not in accordance to "Deciding on an article title".

Were is there I quote:"Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."

Secondly there is a lot of content that don't have any ground with "improvised". You also sad that I quote"converted pick-up with a mounted gun in the back" so what to do about it? Converted-improvised, what about content. Loesorion (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not use the term "improvised". I also did not state that "Technical" is the common name of the converted pick-up with a mounted gun in the back in Somalia alone. What I said is that "Technical" is the common name, period. That's what the vehicle is commonly known as in the English language media in general. That's its WP:COMMONNAME, including in the recent Libyan and Syrian conflicts (c.f. [5]). This English Wikipedia article is on the technical in general, so thus the page is named. Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Middayexpress I didn't say you did used term improvised but article content is using it as part of definition for Technical Vehicles. How about I make article for example with headline "Bradly" and then define that "Bradly" is vehicle with 6x6 wheel drive and after that in content of article I add 4x4, 6x6, traced vehicles and story about Roman chariots. Would not that be misuse of headline and out of scope for article. You should read content of article and all definitions in light of a headline. And maybe i could creat article wit headline:"Technical rovers" on basis it is common name and to write about rovers that have landed on moon surface.

Should I put in this article all as defined by article I quote:"type of improvised fighting vehicle, typically a civilian or military non-combat vehicle, modified to provide an offensive capability similar to a military gun truck." even if they are commonly known as "Improvised Fighting Vehicle" in the English language and used in history long before so called "Technical" acronym from Somalia. And you don't say a word about using serial vehicles in content of this article is that right with you? Are serial manufactured military vehicles also technical vehicles and in use in the English language media in general as that? Loesorion (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying there. However, "Technical" is indeed the common name in English for this converted pick-up with a mounted gun in the back. That includes the conflicts in Somalia, Libya, Syria, etc. This is why the page is named in this way. Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"". Middayexpress (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Loesorion, User:Middayexpress has it exactly right. The article is about a pickup truck with a heavy weapon mounted on the back. The English-language name comes from 1990s Somalia. The article goes on to explain this niche in the mechanized cavalry that technicals fill, which is where I think you're getting confused. No one would use the term "technical" to describe gun trucks used in WWII or the Vietnam War. That those other gun trucks are mentioned only goes to describe the warfighting role, not to what the term "technical" specifically refers. No change is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Overlap

This article has much overlap with Gun truck and Improvised fighting vehicle. Actually the scopes of all three articles are not well defined at all. If you want to talk about SAS and LRDG here you've obviously gone beyond talking about irregular combattants, and if you picture a 1965 Willys Jeep with recoilless rifle, you've obviously gone beyond North Africa. The least I can do here is include said articles in the See Also section, but there should be a discussion about which information goes in which article, and the resulting delineation must be explained in all of these articles. --BjKa (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Amen. The M38 and the whole section about WWII, real and fictional, do not seem to belong here at all. Does Wiki have any way of formally linking related but separate articles like these, so that they can be edited as a group?Anmccaff (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Change of article headline

Technical (vehicle) terminology is not well used if you look content and description this article contains. Instead Technical which is broader term and used in other areas I would call it "Car mounted gun vehicle" to be more descriptive as it already in use and in context with article content. Usual's Tehnical vehicle terminology in military use is about some vehicle's used as workshop for repairing weapons, electronics, vehicles etc. Eventually fire department vehicle's, munition delivery vehicle, fuel cistern or something like that could be also Technical vehicle's. It is common to use term Technical inspection for vehicles and Vehicle System Technical Guide. Technical is in common use to describe Specification (technical standard) or engineering characteristics. See more on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loesorion (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Article in content uses many vehicles like Willys M38A1, Mitsubishi Type 73 Light which are not called "Technical" by any means by their users and producers. I could add more content to this article but headlines is not good and it would be promoting some term which is not in common use in context of article. There is also use of cars with mounted guns like improvised fighting vehicles before WWII and even in 19 century like Davidson-Duryea Light 4-Wheeled Car and non of them is "Technical". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.34.172 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If article main focus is about improvised fighting vehicle based on cars or automobile modified or upgraded by civilians or rebels or some unofficial army or army workshops and not serial manufactured military cars or cars modified by manufactures than best headline it is "Improvised fighting cars". But in that case article should not use in content anything else or it is misguidance for readers. I have noticed similar problems in Gun Truck article where for example Armadillo armoured fighting vehicle is used in content even it is not improvised but modified commercial vehicle by manufacturer "Bedford Vehicles" for military use. Use of term improvised on this way like it is in this article you could say that for example 152mm SpGH DANA is improvised since it is based on TATRA chassis.

To conclude "Improvised" fighting vehicle is something ad hoc modified, added or upgraded by civilians or rebels or some unofficial army like guerrilla or resistant movement and when talked about official army it is done by army workshops. It is usualy small number of vehicles and it is not serial production of any kind.

Everything else is misguidance.

If article creator had a wish to talk about Somalia use of improvised fighting vehicle based on cars headline could be Somalian "Technical".

• News reports routinely use the puzzling term "technical". I wondered, for years, what the term meant. That some variation of "improvised gun vehicle" might be more accurate, it has the big disadvantage that the general public, and our readers, are going to hear, wonder about, and look up "technical". Geo Swan (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merging, splitting or renaming

In my personal opinion, the topic of the technical merits a standalone article. Elements of other related topics that have ended up here should either be merged into related articles, or split off into their own articles.

#Overlap seems to be suggesting this article should be merged with gun truck. But gun truck says, right in its first line, that those vehicles are armoured, and technicals are unarmoured. That makes technical and gun truck two separate topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)