Talk:Heavy Equipment Transport System

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oshkosh/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bit messed up???

I thought I'd throw this open to discussion before taking the plunge, but to be honest, as this page isn't exactly the most-edited on Wiki, I'm not holding my breath that feedback will be that much. But here goes...

I've been doing some wider updates etc. to Oshkosh pages in recent weeks and I just did a search for the Oshkosh M1070 (the current tank transporter of the US Army), and found myself here... The page Heavy Equipment Transport System, with no offence intended to its creator or those that have added to it over time, is a bit of a bomb site... Heavy Equipment Transport System is a pretty generic term for tank transporters, and while the US Army refers to the M1070 as a HET, there's an entire section on HETs in the latest Jane's military vehicles Yearbook. HET is really a generic name for a tank transporter of any type. To sort out the selection of tank transporter/HETs covered by this current page, I'd suggest individual pages for individual vehicles (and their companion trailer) and I propose creating three new separate pages from the debris that is the current Heavy Equipment Transport System. Unless anybody has a valid objection, I'd create the Oshkosh M1070, the Oshkosh M911, and the Ward LaFrance M746.

In anticipation of this getting the Wiki green light, I'll start enhancing the M1070 over the next few days. It's the most current product, and is pretty out of date right now.

Thoughts welcomed.Wolpat (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/49199765/TM-9-2320-427-10-M1070A1

https://www.scribd.com/doc/42484402/TM-9-2330-381-14-M1000

This site has a lot of stuff. It also has an inexpensive short trial deal, you can download anything as a PDF. Sammy D III (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sammy D III, I looked up the HETA1 stuff and it's really good. I was unaware of this site. I'll use it to add content. What do you think to my proposal for the HET entry in general? Would you be in favour? Nobody has said a jot yet, so I'll get on with it PDQ I think. Not sure how long I'm supposed to wait before doing stuff like this, but if I break a rule I'm sure a Wiki-Bore will tell me pretty quickly! Have a great weekend. Wolpat (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I think that site is a gold mine. There is a lot of HEMTT stuff there, that would be your world, too?

As a general rule, in TMs suffix -10 is operator manual, -20 is unit support, and -30 is direct and general support. P is parts, and HR is hand receipts, whatever they are.

Make anything you want. I have started making my own articles just to be left alone. When you start a new page, somebody will come by and check it out quickly. If you make a lede (you’re British, right?), have a couple of paragraphs, and a reference, it will probably stay up. And as first person there, you can sort of make it your way. British vs US English, measurement units, maybe more. EDIT: I sort of think you should use US English and measurements on a US vehicle. Just my opinion.

A couple of tricks. A colon in front of a paragraph indents it. My others have one, this one has two. And you can convert a lot of things with these things (I think they are “templates”): 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m) or 4.85 m (15 ft 11 in). There are a lot of them.

As to this article, I think that if you took “compromising an 8x8…M1 Abrams” out of the lead, then made the different types shorter digests that matched, it would look better. Just my opinion, though, and I am an outsider.

Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

transporting wheeled vehicles?

This vehicle being transported looks more mobile on its own than the transport system.

Is it broken, or what's the purpose of transporting it?

--Ikar.us (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

---It could have a mechanical problem, but then again, it may not. As the Fuchs is an armoured vehicle it will have a higher per mile running cost than the HET, the HET being based around standard commercial components, while the Fuchs is not. The HET would also have a higher sustainable speed on highway than the Fuchs, and driver fatique in the HET would be far lower than that of the Fuchs. There may also be an element of 'it's standard practice to transport armoured vehicles' and beyond that, we have no idea quite how far the Fuchs was destined to be transported. It could have been 100s of milesWolpat (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)