Talk:Jackal (vehicle)

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / British / European

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 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
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

now edited to avoid copy vio Talskiddy

1m ground clearance?

That seems a dubious claim to me. I know that the BBC source [1] backs it up but I'd like to see further verification - I suspect the reporter misunderstood something he was told. Dino246 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the other sources, the Daily Mail article, quoted 3ft ground clearance as well: "A unique air-suspension system can raise the seven-ton vehicle by 3ft, allowing it to clear obstacles." Happy to see cites to the contrary though and crucially the MoD press release doesn't mention it... Dick G (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Purchase

Can someone update with deployment of "Narys" by Australian Forces in Afghanistan http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24918566-662,00.html --Frmby988 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Is it really necessary to list every reported incident in this vehicle? Is it not sufficient to say that there have been numerous casualties in Jackals and include the references? This section is beginning to take the form of a tribute to soldiers lost in Jackals and I'm not sure that this is appropriate here. Dino246 (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there are other pages for listings of cas, this is about the veh. Tragino (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is about the vehicle and to properly address the incidents ends up straying into tactical decision making.

Although perhaps if we want to set a precedent we list all the casualties on the article about uniform, since they were wearing it at the time!

ALR (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, although I sometimes wonder about some peoples motivation and the issue of censorship/spin in articles such as this one. Perhaps --80.176.142.11 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)after the mention about it being vulnerable add a casualty total then a link to British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 where if it was mentioned the soldier killed was in a Jackal then it is in the entry there. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally there can be quite a lot of spin around including the material since all that's verifiable is the event and the casualty. Inclusion implies that it's a consequence of the vehicle, rather than anything else.

We don't know if the vehicle was being used inappropriately (WMIK and MWMIK are unsuitable for convoy escort for example) or whether the device in question was targeted at a more heavily protected vehicle; Warrior for example. We don't know whether it was radio, command wire or victim initiated, we don't know whether it was a first device or a follow up and what the different implications of those aspects are.

We don't know enough to be able to really insert the information in an unbiased way, for example the recently removed point about 5 attacks, actually there have been many more IED attacks, but only 5 have led to deaths. We don't know the proportions so we can't imply a judgement about effectiveness.

Essentially, bland figures don't convey the decision making, dumbing down might be suitable for tabloid headlines where everyone's a critic from the comfort of their armchairs, but not for a balanced discussion of the vehicle.

ALR (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting increasingly fed up with media assertions that certain vehicles are more or less vulnerable to IED attacks, and it would be a bad idea for Wikipedia to echo these. The fact is that practically no land vehicles can survive a well executed IED attack. The Americans have suffered many IED casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe the British lost a Challenger 2 main battle tank to one in Iraq, and it's hard to imagine a more resistant vehicle. British forces are taking disproportionate casualties from IED attacks because they don't have enough transport helicopters, not because one vehicle is more resistant than another. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is a little tedious for these pages to be focussing on the IED vulnerability of the vehicles, but that is the most prevalent current threat to them, and something that is open to question. In this case the current tome of the article states that the vehicle is considered 'safe' and the references do not support that claim. Some vehicles ARE more resistant than others- for instance the Snatch and Vector vehicles are both nominally wthdrawn because their use was causing too many casualties. The jackal may be better than either of them, and still considerably less good than other vehicles such as the Mastif. In the end it's vehicle + deplyment that makes the risk. Meeware (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users

What about maybe saying something about other users of the models? Flosssock1 (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd naming convention

Seems weird for a company called SupaCAT to names its products after caninesTalltim (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to High Mobility Transporter

Suggest renaming article from Jackal to High Mobility Transporter.

Jackal is the name given to the variant for British Army around 2007. It is the HMT 400. This was developed for the British SAS under Project Minacity with a contract awarded in 2001. US Delta Force bought designated Marauders. Then British Army order. Later, Australian and Danish special forces bought the new variant HMT Extenda (configurable between 4x4 and 6x6). Australians placed a further order to bring fleet to 120 and Norwegian special forces purchased.

This article is solely British Army based when it is operated by others. Other users and history can be added if name is changed. --Melbguy05 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is solely British Army based ", but you want to rename it to a different non-British vehicle? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "a different non-British vehicle". It is the same vehicle. Supacat website - HMT 400 (named the ‘Jackal’ by our UK customer) / HMT 600 (named the ‘Coyote’ by our UK customer). --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll of course be able to source all this? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already some information here Supacat HMT. It is a question of whether to create a new article titled High Mobility Transporter or rename this one. --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of evolutionary vehicles involved. There is an unclear question of editorial scope as to where WP should put the boundaries on its articles, and whether there should be one article or several to cover the whole history. Obviously the article content would then need editing to match that narrative to the scope of those article scopes.

The trouble is that you're blanking sourced content saying "Supacat Jackal", claiming that it's in relation to another related but different vehicle, but you're not yourself putting forward any clear content or sourced references to support this. If you want to re-jig this article, you're going to have to make a clearer case for it. What is the timeline of this vehicle (all variants)? When is it reasonable to refer to a 'Jackal' variant within that? Why are the existing sources describing vehicle purchases as Jackals, when you claim they're something else? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jackal (vehicle). 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move page to 'High Mobility Transporter' and other changes

"Jackal" is not a "family of vehicles" like the opening paragraph states. "Jackal" is just one vehicle which is in service with the British Army in two variations. The family is the High Mobility Transporter (HMT) which includes the HMT 400 (Jackal), HMT 600 (Coyote) and HMT Extenda. The article also mentions Coyote and Extenda, neither of which are "Jackals", and mentions the vehicles in service with other countries, despite those vehicles not being known as "Jackals" by them.

I propose we move the page to 'High Mobility Transporter' (or similiar) and structure the article around the three main versions, plus their variants, and write about the family beyond just the British Army. It's a lot more accurate than the mish-mashed state the article is currently in. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheArmchairSoldier: I would support moving the page to High Mobility Transporter. I proposed moving it back in 2016. I have been updating the High Mobility Transporter section in the SC Group article for other countries and for the history of the HMT. As it may be a potentially controversial move I suggest you follow the WP:PCM process. Melbguy05 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]