Talk:Snatch Land Rover

Picture snatch 1 not 2

The picture listed with this article is in fact Snatch 1, not its replacement. You can tell by the front and rear sidelights and indicators, among other things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.157.154 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Snatch 1 it is.Billlion (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Resistance to RPGs

I have move this anon contribution to the talk (copy edited and wikilinks added) Here it is in history: [1]

My experience:

I was in a snatch under heavy fire and can sing its praises combating the penitration of 7.62 soviet however RPG-7s make a right mess of its thin armour

It cant be left in the article as in the article as it counts as "original research". But if someone can find a quotable source for it it would be interesting if one could be found.Billlion (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Googlewashed

This page seems to have been "googlewashed". It is no longer in any way accessible via the google search engine - the search for "snatch land rover" takes you directly to Land Rover Defender. However, the snatch entry is still top of the list on yahoo.

10 November - Service seems to have been restored.

--92.9.65.222 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress

Regular readers of this page will have seen it grow from a small "stub" now to a major entry. As author of the additions, with the permission of the "Wiki" community, I intend to continue expanding this to tell the whole story - as far as I know it - of the "Snatch" drama, which covers an important and interesting period in the history of the British Army, with significant political ramifications.

If, in so doing, I breach some "wiki" conventions, I apologise in advance and ask that I be allowed to develop the story on this page, without major modifications to it - deferring any decision as to whether to break up the page until the work is substantially complete. I will add references progressively, so that the work is fully supported.

My thanks also to those who have corrected errors and typos.

My name is Richard North and I can be contacted directly by e-mail on RAENORTH at aol.com

--92.11.58.94 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

10 November 2008

Hi Richard. Perhaps you would consider making a Wikipedia account. You might find it easier to make edits and engage with the community since you would have your own talk page. FYI, the convention on article and user talkpages such as this one is to add new comment sections to the bottom of the existing page. Hohum (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hohum - sorry ... moved. Too used to blogging. I will open an account.

--92.11.58.94 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've opened an account and will continue posting with that "handle". Many thanks to all those who have improved the copy and corrected the typos, etc.

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties section

I'd suggest that instead of trying to describe 38 fatalities by attempting to give each incident a unique introduction phrase, which is confusing and difficult to scan through, it was standardised, and put in list form? i.e.

Date1, name, name..., was killed by method while carrying out task in location, (country).

Date2, etc.

It might also be helpful to split Iraq and Afghanistan into separate lists in their own subsections. Hohum (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK ... I was trying to give it a sense of narrative, but I can pick that up in the "controversy" sections". I'll look at it and see how I can reorganise it. Unsure about splitting Afghanistan and Iraq - the chronology is perhaps more (or as) important than the location. What do you think?

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! Will that do?

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdented] I think it's very difficult to form a coherent narrative with around 25 successive events, and as you saidm you seem to be getting that with the later sections. It's still rather impenetrable to read as a block listing though, so my suggestion wasn't that great. Perhaps break it up by year? i.e.

2004

entry

entry

2005

entry

...

Hohum (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's much better!

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-naming this page?

As this page develops, it occurs that it is not about the Snatch Land Rover, per se but more about the Snatch Land Rover controversy. This goes much wider than a dissertation about a military vehicle.

The "Snatch" has come to symbolise the ill-preparedness of the British Army and the Government for counter-insurgency warfare in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, and as such has acquired an iconic status. It also represents the failures of the military and political establishments rapidly to adapt to changing circumstances of the the wars, and protect troops from unnecessary risk.

A suggestion, therefore: that this page is renamed (The) "Snatch Land Rover controversy" (or the entire contents transferred to another page with that heading - whatever is technically most appropriate). Then whatever becomes the "Snatch Land Rover" page is trimmed right back to deal with just the technical description of the vehicle, with prominent links to the "controversy" page.

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably more appropriate to start an entirely new article with the new title, then cut and paste the relevant parts of this one on to it. Leave a skeleton paragraph section here with a link to the new article. It might also be worth looking at the British Army page(s) to see if there is a relevant place to link to your new article, and searching for articles about British Army preparedness, British COIN preparedness, British Army/Government conflict etc.

Hohum (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll think long and hard about that, and do some digging ... got to concentrate on the "day job" for a few days, but I'll be back - as they say!

Defence of the Realm (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Style and balance

This article has come to resemble a personal essay with a significant degree of personal opinion and rather a lot of synthesis.

It needs a critical culling of material to restore some balance and rid the article of only tangentially relevant material.

ALR (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The author of the changes has already suggested splitting the tangential information to a separate article. I suggest we give him the opportunity to do that, and take any discussion about its content there, rather than mire this article with discussion about its style.

Hohum (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good lets go for Snatch Land Rover contoversy and split it off reverting this to an older version. Billlion (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely agreeable to that ... although some of the details of the vehicle could stay here, making the page here rather more detailed than it was as a stub. As a new user, I'm not familiar with the details about starting a new page and a bit nervous about doing so, but if someone will start up a page on Snatch Land Rover controversy, I will move most of the material there and clear out this page.

--Defence of the Realm (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdented] Click the following red link and start writing the new page ;) Snatch Land Rover controversy (typo in Billlion's link corrected). Although starting an article isn't really ownership of it, it is still useful. Hohum (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any activity I'm going to cull quite a lot of this article, in the interests of allowing the opportunity for an unbalanced rant article to be created I'll move the current article to this placeholder in the meantime.

ALR (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got rid of all of the blog post style, the overuse of block quoting, the original research, the blog references which don't meet Verifiability and the use of a personal blog as a source, indicating a conflict of Interest risk.

I appreciate that has removed a significant amount of volume, but think that the article is now a much more concise and balanced representation of what is a fairly straightforward issue of media bandwaggoning.

I've also moved the casualty section down, although I question the value of it. without an independent assessment of each incident we don't have a clear indicator of whether the protection level of the snatch was an issue, in some cases I'd question whether a Warrior would have done the job. My main concern is that the list implies that the vehicle was at fault, without substantiating that. the list of British casualties article is already well maintained and it strikes me as more appropriate only to link to it, rather than duplicate a chunk of it.

ALR (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As this page has now been pruned down and is balanced then if no one objects I shall remove the neutrality dispute banner from the page on 16 December 2008. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do it. Have just read this article. As someone who hasn't been involved in the article before now, and who has no particular view point on the subject matter I believe this article to be well balanced with no OR or POV 82.46.49.45 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming

The article says 'formally described as the Truck Utility Medium (TUM) with Vehicle Protection Kit (VPK).' I'm sure though that the VPK was the predecessor to the Snatch, which is a different vehicle? It's obvious that the Snatch is a composite armoured vehicle from the ground up, not a converted standard Defender. I'll change this to 'successor to the Truck Utility Medium (TUM) with Vehicle Protection Kit (VPK)' unless there are objections. --Wranadu2 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Snatch Land Rover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116065935/http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/06/too_big_for_bas.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/06/too_big_for_bas.html#more

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)