Talk:Armored bulldozer

Split
This article was split from the D9 article beacuse:


 * 1) It was getting to long.
 * 2) This article is as much about politics as it is about the machinery.
 * 3) This article is mostly about the military applications (targeted at civilians and guerilla fighters) of the dozers and not strickly battlefield engineering.

--RPlunk 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is just a copy of the relevant section in the Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. Also note that the IDF uses primerly the D9 bulldozer. The Israeli Engineering Forces also operate wheel loaders and tracked excavators, but these operated in more of logistics operations rather than front lines' engagements. MathKnight 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I know it is an exact copy, it just didn't feel bold enough to delete the original taxt in the Caterpillar D9 article. However, I think it should have its own page because it is not about how the D9 is used by Israel DF but how the IDF uses the D9 Bulldozer (sounds funny i know).  Another way to understand my rational is to think of cars used as bombs (car bombs); let's say cargo vans are the most popular vehicle to use for car bombs (for obvious reasons), certianly the cargo van article may make mention that some cargo vans are used as car bombs (surely not what they were designed and built for), but the article would not examplain (in detail) how car bombs are made and targets selected.  No, instead that information would go under car bombs.  So if you can undterstand my logic, then you will see why I (and others I assume) think that the usage of the D9 by the IDF belongs in its own article.--RPlunk 19:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the material should stay in the Caterpillar D9 article. It is not as if this is some ordinary item that just happens to be used for destructive purposes (the car bomb analogy). Presumably when these are sold to the IDF, the sales people know what they are being used for. There is litigation pending against Caterpillar. I believe that attempts to delete this section from the D9 article are just an attempt to sweep this under the rug. --David Battle 05:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that they be seperate articles. if they change how they run things then the two articles will be very different. or if someone looks up the bull dozer they might not want some of this information --wardenusa

--

I have come to Wiki looking for information about Caterpillar bulldozers but judging by the ratio of information on CAT bulldozers to information on the activities of the IDF it seems that the entries are made by persons attempting to make IDF purchase of CAT dozers a vehicle for their own politics. CAT don't even make armored bulldozers. It is not as if there are lengthy entries on CAT bulldozers in conflict zones, such as Vietnam, where they have a much longer period of use. Perhaps it would be better to place the information on IDF use of bulldozers under the section on the IDF. Use of CAT bulldozers by the IDF is not statistically significant in terms of the total sales of CAT bulldozers throughout the 20thC, nor significant in terms of the number of CAT bulldozers used in war zones. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.249.144 (talk ? contribs).


 * Beyond the first [summarising] passage, we should move the material to a separate article so as to focus specifically on elaboration of military bulldozers and the debate surrounding their combat usage. We should probably also change the article name to something that would encompass the American use in Iraq, as well as other potential use in combat areas. Perhaps it should be named something like "Military bulldozer" or "Combat bulldozer". Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If no one objects, I'm moving this article to "Combat bulldozer," along with the details of both Israeli and American usage from the D9 article.  Tewfik Talk 05:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the appropriate sections to Armored Bulldozer.  Tewfik Talk 03:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Operator deaths
Based on a reported date in the Hezbollah article, I am guessing that there have been 2 D9 operators killed in operations on the Lebanon/Israel border, and have edited this article accordingly. But the incidents as described are similar, and the dates exactly a year apart, so perhaps there has been only a single death. Can someone with direct knowledge clarify and correct if necessary?Ian Page 07:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Only 1 ranger, travelling on the dozer, was killed. The driver survived. MathKnight 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Beyond ridiculous
This page is completely out of hand. The politicking on it is unacceptable. Anyone who likes may reduce it to acceptable levels, or I'll do it myself. IronDuke 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing alot of stuff that I felt was beyond the scope of an article on armored bulldozers. That stuff can all be found elsewhere in more appropriate articles.Patrick Berry 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, well done. IronDuke  19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

the article ist still extremely POV... --Severino (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

POV check
I added the POV check for several reasons. Amongst the areas of concern are Also in general the section seems a bit poorly written with few refs. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "the D9s and other engineering vehicle were used to bring them out by razing the houses; most of them surrender because of the fear to be buried alive but some, including senior terrorists, were killed"why do we highlight 'senior terrorists' here? What about civilians?
 * "after the deadly ambush in which 13 soldiers were killed the D9s razed the center of the camp and forced the remaining Palestinian terrorists to surrender, thus finishing the battle with Israeli victory" - ditto (although I changed terrorists to militants which is less of a weasel word)
 * "Israelis and military experts saw" - what military experts?
 * why isn't the controversy about their use in house demolition of suicide bombers mentioned? (doesn't have to be long but it should be mentioned this use in particular is controversial)


 * I don't recall cases in which civilians were killed using what the IDF calls "Sir Lachatz" (Pressure Pot), civilians usually leave the houses before the bulldozers statred to shake it.
 * There's no denial that those militants targeted civilians (suicide bombing were rarely targeted against troops) the title "terrorist" is accurate for them.
 * It is written in the hidden comment, Martin van Creveld (search in Google "martin van creveld + D9", it was even reported by professor Tanya Reinhardt in Hebrew) and Yagil Henkin . It is also described in Time Magazin article about the battle of Jenin.
 *  M ath K night  Gothic   Israeli   Jew  19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do someone object that I remove the POV-check template?  M ath K night  Gothic   Israeli   Jew  19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

i object that the POV tag is removed before substantial changes are made. --Severino (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this controversy still going on? Has the POV tag to be kept? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article remains unacceptably biased. Essentially, all that needs to be stated are its uses: Demolition, mine clearing etc. The reasons and justifications for its use are irrelevant, the reader can make up their own mind whether demolition of civilian homes is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.8 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that only part of one sentence in the "Israeli Use" section makes any mention of outrage/criticism of damage to civilians and civilian property, I would say that the POV tag definately needs to remain. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armored bulldozer. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115160749/http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=216 to http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=216
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030926024616/http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/kuwait-dig.htm to http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/kuwait-dig.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

US Use in the PTO
Could have sworn the Americans made extensive use of bulldozers in the PTO during WW2 to clear Japanese field fortifications - but these may not have been armoured in the strictest sense and/or have had expedient armour added to a basic civilian model in the field. Currently the article seems to limit WW2 use to NWE post D-day ... which seems unlikely to me.

Anyone know for certain? 82.1.7.156 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)