Talk:Caterpillar D9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Caterpillar D9 is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Controversial bulldozer?

How on earth can a bulldozer have a controversial reputation? Chadloder 04:02, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you don't follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then it's not likely that you'd be familiar at all with it. The only prominence the D9 has gotten in international affairs is in its use in Palestine as a tool of war. Namely, for large and small scale destruction houses (which many claim to be in violation of the Geneva conventions), and in a few cases, entire villages. Also, it earned notoriety for the death of Rachel Corrie.

If you don't trust that it's controvertial, I suggest that you go to www.google.com, and type in "Caterpillar D9" into the search bar. Karen 17:47, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the D9 before today. However, the bulldozer used in the Rachel Corrie incident could just as easily have been another model. The incident distinguishes the Caterpillar D9 not at all, nor does it in the least make the model "controversial." - Hephaestos 01:23, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict very closely. I'm not denying that the death of Rachel Corrie is a controversial issue. I don't see how it makes the bulldozer controversial. To illustrate: the D.C. snipers drove 1990 Chevy Caprice Classic with a modified trunk. Does this mean I should go add an article for Chevrolet Caprice and call it a "controversial sniper-mobile"? Chadloder 01:17, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

The D9 is one of only a few types of bulldozers in the world used for military applications. The only other types that I am aware of that are actively used in combat situations are the Caterpillar D8, the Caterpillar D4, and a couple others. The D8H and a few others are used for mineclearing, but that's not controversial. Your analogy would only be apt if the Chevy Caprice Classic was one of the only types of cars ever used in sniping. Likewise, is sniping one of the things that the Caprice is most famous for? Because the death of Rachel Corrie and the use of the D9 in home demolitions is what it has the most international notoriety for.

If you can name something that is more notable about the D9 than its extensive use in controvertial illegal demolitions, be my guest. Until then, I recommend that you leave the only thing that makes the D9 particularly noteworthy *in*.  :) Rei 16:11, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

The demolitions are legal according to the Fourth Geneva Convention under the article that states that when houses are use for violent purposes they are deprived of their civilian-state protection.

BTW, if you want to discuss wording, I welcome it wholeheartedly. But if an object is really only famed for one thing (which a quick google.com search shows to be quite true), it's irresponsible to censor that out if you're trying to make a knowledge source here. And if you have anything else about it that seems noteworthy to you, I would welcome it as well. But, as it stands, this is what the D9 is famous for. Rei 16:18, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well, they're widely used in construction and mining, as well. The D9 is large enough not to be trailered around casually, making the somewhat smaller machines more commonplace. A few of the excavation contractors around my area have them, though the D7 is more popular. Like other industrial equipment, there isn't much of a web presence. I was unaware of an armored version. Is this manufactured by Cat or is the armor added by others? I think that to call the machine controversial hardly reflects a balanced view; any number of smaller machines could conceivably been used as well as any of the large machines made by other manufacturers, which are legion. Kat 21:48, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Israel is the only nation who has been actively using the D9 in combat, although the US has recently bought some armored D9s as well. I'll add in more specifics about the armored version to the page; would you liked to add more info about the un-armored version? Technically, any bulldozer can be armored; however, the D9 is one of the only ones that is used as a weapon of war in any quantity. Rei 15:25, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'll see what I can drum up. Maybe I can take a photo of one. Kat 20:51, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've added some websites with photos of the armoured version of the D9. There are 3 armies using the D9: Israel, the US and France. While France is using a D9 antique as a platform for mine-rollers and the Americans use them as a larger Caterpillar D7, the Israelis are using the D9 also for combat purposes (more details in the article). While the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict is controversial, the D9 is no different than a tank (well, it is more versatile and has a blade insted of a gun). All in all, the Israelis use it well for saving their soldiers' lives.

here are some GFDL images on Rachel Corrie that could work here. I've cropped out Corrie herself, so we just get pictures of the 'dozer. Martin 17:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Edited first paragraph of IDF D9 usage for citations. The usage of a biased organization's information as fact is not proper. -Unregistered Wikipedian (17:54, 5 June 2006)

  I would like to put my say in this. I have been following the issues regarding this machine and what it has done and can do. The D9 is an engineering device. It can be used to construct or destroy. It can easily be used to clear farmland as much as it can destroy buildings. When the Chinese invented gun powder they used it to make fireworks, turns out it is also good for shooting depleted uranium at people. 
   
  The D9 is an amazing machine. Don’t bash the machine for what it was built to do, bash the people that are using it as a war machine. Also the D9 can be armored for a reason. I have worked on several dangerous construction projects and ill tell you this. A iron beam weighing a little over 6 tons falling 4 stories has more potential energy than a the most powerful land mine. So when your doing demolition your not just going to bring in your average bulldozer. The D9 is the god of bulldozers and is not a killing machine. The machine is doing exactly what it was built to do. It cant drive it self and it cant just say "Hey, I think ill go on a demolition rampage through the Gaza strip today!". If your going to through words out aim them at the people responsible for the demolitions. 
   And as regards to this   <<<<<   If you can name something that is more notable about the D9 than its extensive use in controversial illegal demolitions, be my guest.  Until then, I recommend that you leave the only thing that makes the D9 particularly noteworthy *in*.  :) Rei 16:11, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)>>>>    The road side cellular bombs, that are responsible for a huge amount of killings, are usually made out of old imbedded antenna phones. Does that mean that old phones are controversial items? The phones are not generally noted for anything else. They must be evil! And being a heavy machinery enthusiast I know the D9 is praised for its reliability, ease of use, and massive power over any other bulldozer in its class. Over all the D9 should not even be regarded as a part of the Israel - Palestine war issues but as an extremely effective engineering machine.

[edit] Pictures

The picture is great, unforunately - it makes the text beside unreadable (too short lines) - I think I'll change its properties to make it center, no float.

Secondly, the IDF has only D9 (L,N,R). Everybody mistaking the big D9L for a D10, but it is not true. There are no D10 and D11 in the army (perhapes only in their civilian configuration, on lease).

I de-floated the big piccy.
I also re-added the photos of the military version. We're allowed to have more than one image on a page, and I think these images are worthwhile, carefully placed in the section discussing military usage. Obviously they would be inappropriate at the top of the page, though. Martin 20:37, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Btw, see wikipedia:alternate text for images. Martin 20:45, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops. Removed the "larger versions" since they weren't actually any closer-up as one expects larger versions to be. Still, I suppose they were possibly useful for size-comparisons...? Evercat 20:59, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That was kinda my thinking. But maybe they're not useful enough? Hard to say. Martin 21:07, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We do have the big thing at the top with dimensions - is the military version bigger? Anyway, Image:RachelCorrie.jpeg is, on my monitor at least, really badly contrasted, though Image:RachelProtest.jpeg is OK... Evercat 21:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That small picture is of an unarmored bulldozer. You can clearly see the light passing through the back and front windows of the cab, which shows the size and shape of the glass. This is obviously a standard cab. The armored cabs have very small, square windows. The cab is also clearly missing the "bulk" that the armored cabs have. -Hoskie

No, it is a picture of an armored bulldozer. You can see the metal-net upon the blade and that's, along with the smaller "unbulky" cabine indicates it is the D9R bulldozer. Here are picctures of an armored D9R from the front and from the rear. As you can see - the cabine is definately different from the cabine of a D9N and looks thiner and lighter (mainly because of the larger windows) - but it is still armored and the windows still can deflect large caliber rounds. The D9R armor is different than the armor the IDF installed on previous D9 models.

It's a photo provided by the ISM of an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, described by all witnesses as an armoured bulldozer - I'd be surprised if it was unarmoured. Martin 18:41, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the above author is claiming the metal-net blade proves? Blades come with and without that "net" on both current and previous generations of tractors. That leaves us with the cabin shape, which isn't well shown in this picture. The accounts at the ISM don't seem to be in agreement as to whether this was an armored tractor, or a regular tractor. The armoring of the Corrie tractor seems speculative to me, but I'll keep researching. -Hoskie
If you'll see the all the pictures in the links you'll see there is a correlation between the blade netting and the D9 generation (i.e. IDF D9L and D9N don't have blade nettings, only the D9R has one). Secondly, the Rache; accodint occured in Rafah, a place known as damgerous because of booby-traps and snipers threats. The soldiers weren't allowed to step out of their armored vehicles because of the sniper threat, and therefore - indicates the D9 operated there was armored (to protect the driver from snipers' fire). Unarmored D9 usually aren't colored in green-olive but stay in the orginal yellow paint.

If you are unsatisified by the current pictures of an armored D9, you can use the following:

They are much better pictures than those provided by the ISM and give full view of the D9 dozer instead partial view.

Are they GFDL or public domain? If not, we can't use them... Martin 22:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok - this is how I fixed it. Instead of arguing over whether the old picture was of an armored one or not, I uploaded a US govt picture of one that is clearly armored. This picture is better, too, because it clearly shows the armor. -Hoskie

May want to add something about the new Robot Bulldozers used by the IDF. -Penta 06:37, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You may have noticed that there was a link there to this article :) Also note that "No D-9 driver was killed..." from that article confirms how good is the armour kit on this tractor.

Hi "80.179.85.7" - you requested an explanation. Unfortunately, a few of your changes were in non-standard English, so I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. I have removed the additions that I found problematic. I also reverted one change where you combined to sentences into one - I felt that the seperated sentences were clearer. I kept your other changes. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! :)

As long it is only grammer changes it is fine by me. I am not a native English speaker.

[edit] Rafah demolitions

I removed this part:

>> According to the IDF, about 50 houses were destroyed during Operation Rainbow on mid May 2004, while according to the Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem, 114 houses were destroyed in a single weekend, leaving 1,160 people homeless before the operation [1]; the UNRWA reported 88 buildings destroyed in the operation itself, with 1064 people left homeless. [2] [3]. Later UNRWA dropped the number to 45 houses razed. [4] <<

Since it is pretty unrelevant to the article. It is merely an agrument about numbers. I replaced it with a short paragraph >> The destruction of hundreds of structures in Rafah is highly contraversial issue: the Israeli Defence Forces claim the destruction is a security neccessity and that most houses destroyed were used for terrorist activity; Palestinians claim the destruction left thousands of people homeless and is done systematicly in order to create a "buffer zone" between Rafah and Philadelphi Route. << The proper place for discussion is either al-Aqsa intifada article, or the articles about Rafah or Operation Rainbow. I think that's conclude that issue. MathKnight 14:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heemeyer "Killdozer" rampage in Granby

Regarding this link: http://www.killdozer.us/ that anon-user added: It is some sort of a fan-site to Marvin Heemeyer's armored bulldozer.

  1. Does it should be removed or not?
  2. The webmaster don't understand much about bulldozers.
    • Marv DID NOT had a D9R model (the tracks are totally different), but an older (I guess a D9G or D9H) which is no more under production.
    • They published a picture of an IDF armored bulldozer and captioned it a "D9R" although it is actually a D9N.

MathKnight 10:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] "With great sucess"

I placed a NPOV warning on this page. I have not read the complete page but this caption says: An IDF armoured military D9 bulldozer. D9s were operated by the Israeli Engineering Corps since the Six Day War, with great success." I cannot simply call the destruction of houses of innocent people " great success". It's not NPOV. Bontenbal 17:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  1. The title of the picture is refering to the usage of the D9 since the Six Day War, including Yom Kippur War and Operation Peace of Galilee. The usages of a D9 are much wider than demolishing houses. In fact, the main usage of the D9 are engineering works and clearing out minefields. D9 bulldozers were involved in the breaching of the Suez Canal and paving a way to the besieged Israeli soldiers on the peak of Mount Hermon. Overall, the D9 proven itself in its 30 years of service within the IDF.
  2. Many of the houses the D9 destroyed were not of innocent men. The D9 is an armored bulldozer - and is mainly being used when there is a serious life danger in the AO (Area of Operation). Where there is no such danger (for example: demolishing building that were built without a permit), the demolition is carried out either by explosives or civilian excavators.
  3. The argument about house demolition is some-what surpasses the scope of this article, and is handled in the article al Aqsa Intifada.
  4. Have we resolved the differences?

MathKnight 17:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, although I do admit that successes have been achieved with this bulldozer, you cannot say it was successful by all standards. Therefore I suggest you leave leave the words "with great success" out of the caption. Bontenbal 11:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And then the NPOV will be resolved? MathKnight 12:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but we also need to change the bold part of the next sentence: "This method was also employed (with great success) in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield after 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush". Either leave it out or change it into with great success for the Israeli Army. (I also prefer Israeli Army, which is plain English, over IDF which is jargon, but I will not make a problem of it). Bontenbal 23:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it is quit clear that the success aspect refer to the IDF. The method enabled the IDF to handle militants efficiently without loosing soldiers for snipers or booby traps. How about changing it to

This method was also employed in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield after 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush, resulting in the surrender of dozens of gunmen without further Israeli casualties."

MathKnight 00:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's okay. If it's changed the NPOV will be resolved! Bontenbal 11:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing the change. MathKnight 19:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Size

The article says the D9 is 4m tall; but the picture of the IDF armored D9 looks to be at about twice that height. Is there some perspective trickery going on to make the presumed Palestinians in the foreground look even more defenseless? --Golbez 09:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The picture is of the D9L, which is larger than the D9R (but is height should be around the 4m). The lack of proportions in the picture may be caused due to angle of photo or because the people in the pictures are not full-grown adults. MathKnight 17:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I wish to have some IDF sources on the backing of palestinian terrorists. Ericd 20:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I did some quick googling and the only item I was able to find is this:

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/021303_israel.htm

"Israeli officials are particularly angered by payments made to the families of suicide bombers by various Palestinian groups and by Iraq, which gives $25,000 to bombers' families -- a fortune in the Palestinian territories. Home demolitions, Israel believes, can serve as a powerful counterweight to such rewards."

It does not provide specific references to specific officials, unfortunately. Michael Voytinsky 17:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heemeyer dozer - a CAT D9 or a Komatsu D335A ?

Following the comment:

Please note: Local newspapers are quite specific in identifying the Heemeyer bulldozer as a Komatsu D335A - not a Caterpillar D9.

I moved this section into the Talk page until the type of Hemeyer's bulldozer could be determined. MathKnight 17:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian incident illustrating the D9's power

Please note: Local newspapers are quite specific in identifying the Heemeyer bulldozer as a Komatsu D335A - not a Caterpillar D9.

On the 4th of June, 2004 a Granby, Colorado, USA resident by the name of Marvin Heemeyer ran amok driving a modified D9 and destroyed several houses and community buildings in the small farming village of Granby. He crashed the buildings of his adversaries in a zoning dispute involving his muffler shop and a new concrete mixing plant. Heemeyer fitted makeshift concrete armor to the vehicle, turning it into a tank-like mobile fortress. The cabin, engine and tracks were protected by reinforced concrete armor that was, in places, over one foot thick. The driver's vision of where he was going was provided by video cameras outside the driver's compartment feeding three CRTs inside. Heemeyer also provided food, water, and air conditioning for himself inside the fortified driver's cabin. The bulldozer was armed with several rifles and a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) gun. The D9 itself was an old model that was no longer in production.

During the one-and-a-half hour rampage, law enforcement officers fired hundreds of bullets at the makeshift tank and set off explosive charges against it, but could not stop the D9's rampage. Finally the fortified D9 came to rest, trapped in the rubble of a collapsed building. A failed radiator brought the vehicle to a halt. Heemeyer apparently took his own life in his cockpit, while SWAT teams were using explosives and oxy-acetylene cutting torches to gain access to the driver's compartment.

Although nobody else was killed in the incident, property damage was very extensive. According to many reports, Heemeyer went out of his way to avoid killing innocents, and apparently the purpose of his rampage was solely to cause extensive property damage to his 'enemies.'

See: killdozer (bulldozer).

[edit] References

This site affirms the anonimous comment. [5] MathKnight 22:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Bulldozer

If no one objects, I'd like to move the details of both Israeli and American usage from the D9 article to a new "Combat bulldozer" article. TewfikTalk 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the appropriate sections to Armored bulldozer. TewfikTalk 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

Stop trying to make this article make Israel seem as if it is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. To call a campaign of demolishing houses and uprooting trees, an anti-terror campaign is not accurate. Simply leave the facts as they are and let them speak for themselves. For example- No one on earth can say that Rachel Corrie 'fell and was killed' by an IDF bulldozer, she may very well have been deliberately run over, so the only correct phrasing is to say she was killed by an IDF bulldozer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.210.13 (talk • contribs)

I hope that I was able to resolve any NPOV issues. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prix and Possibility for bay

GFC

Bonjour le Chargé de l’information de VANVLIET TRUCKS HOLLAND B.V Au fait nous vous avons découvert par le biais d’une entreprise analogue à la notre. Nous sommes une entreprise de Fourniture et de Construction commune appelée GFC (Guinéenne de Fourniture et de Construction) basée à Conakry, Sig Madina Immeuble El-Hadj BARRY, Commune de Matam, B.P : 2017 Conakry - République de Guinée, Tél +224 60 55 93 95/ +224 60 34 52 93. Nous oeuvrons brièvement dans les domaines de réalisation des barrages hydro agricoles, de forages, d’infrastructures publiques et privées (des routes, des pistes rurales, des ponts, des écoles des édifices, d’aménagements de plaines et de bas-fonds, et autres). En effet, dans un revus sur vos services, quelques engins lourds nous ont intéressé et dont nous voulons savoir « les prix » 1- CATERPILLAR D9N TRACKED BULLDOZER 2- CATERPILLAR D8H TRACKED BULLDOZER, ’90 3- CATERPILLAR 966F 4x4 WHEEL LOADER, ’94 4- CATERPILLAR 918F 4x4 WHEEL LOADER 5- CATERPILLAR 918F 4x4 WHEEL LOADER 6- CATERPILLAR 14G 6x6 GRADER 7- CATERPILLAR 235C TRACKED ESCAVATOR Dans l’attente d’une suite favorable à ma requête, veillez agréer, Monsieur le chargé des informations de VANVLIET, l’expression de ma haute considération.


info@vanvliet.nl


M. DIOUBATE Mohamed Lamine

   Ingénieur Informaticien chargé 
  des contacts par mail de l’entreprise
   Depuis Conakry

[edit] Military applications section is problematic

Currently, the section makes it seem as if the Israeli D9s are used in direct combat with terrorists, while some peaceniks are upset over the vague "destruction it caused to the Palestinians". While D9s certainly have been used in standoff situations, the condemnations center around their much more widespread use to destroy homes and orchards for what is widely seen as collective punishment of civilians. For example, in Gaza, the IDF used bulldozers to level more than a thousand homes simply because they were too close to the Egyptian border for Israel's liking. Entire olive orchards are scraped to the ground because, allegedly, some Palestinian took a rifle shot at an Israeli soldier from the general area. Homes are demolished in the middle of the night, with a half hour's warning to the inhabitants, for no stated reason whatsoever. I realize that this is an article about a piece of equipment, and not about the controversy, but we currently have a section which makes the D9 sound like some kind of magic anti-terror defense shield. Worse than no section at all, if you ask me. Eleland 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture in the Infobox

From a NPOV I believe that the picture in the info box should be a picture of a standard civilian bulldozer because the vast majority of D9s are used by civilians without any armor. A military bulldozer might give the wrong idea that D9s are made just for the military. I am not saying remove all military photos because that is a use of the bulldozers but most are used for non-military applications. Joedamadman (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one else is going to respond to this, I will take the librity of changing the picture myself. Joedamadman (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is there because it simply gives the best overview of the D9. The pictures of civilian bulldozers were taken from not so good angles and the D9 is partly blended by trucks and other engineering vehicles. If you have a better picture of a D9, you may replace. Maybe it worth a while to achieve a picture of a D9T (even to ask it from Caterpillar tractor company), the latest Caterpillar D9 model. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I sent an email to Caterpillar Inc. requesting an image in public domain or permission to use any other image. Joedamadman (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope that they will answer and agree to send a picture :-) MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 10:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sadly our request for a photo was denied by CAT. If anyone comes across a civilian D9 please take and upload a good photo. Joedamadman (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you really ought to do is go to a website where used machines are sold and ask the sellers if you can use one of their pictures. This one, for example, came up high on google. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea. I am going to email for this image here and hope we get a positive response. Joedamadman (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They never even responded. So I am moving onto another image. Joedamadman (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I too sent CAT a request from free image but they sent me to fill some form and after I did that they never returned to me. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)