Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2021 [1].

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the most numerous type of tracked armoured vehicle to have been operated by the Australian Army, with more than 800 being delivered. The Army first acquired M113 armoured personnel carriers in 1964, and 200 of the type served successfully in the Vietnam War. They were deployed on several peacekeeping operations during the 1990s and 2000s, but a bungled recent upgrade program has meant that the Army's current fleet of 431 M113s are too obsolete to be used for anything other than training. The article discusses the large number of M113 variants to have been operated by Australia, how they have been used and the process currently underway to replace them.

This has been one of the most complicated articles I've worked on due to combination of a lack of comprehensive sources on the topic and large numbers of specialist works which needed to be consulted. The article was assessed as a GA last December, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "Either 817 and 840 M113s were acquired between 1965 and 1979" - think you mean "or" for the first "and"? Also dates don't match article body - please check
    • Oops x 2 - both fixed. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the table providing these numbers, one of the sources has a start date of 1962, and neither seem to have 1964? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: Sorry for missing this comment. The 1962 vehicles were a pair of early models purchased for trials. The type entered service in 1964 when the variant Australia ordered started to be delivered. I've tweaked the lead to reflect this. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small numbers of M113s were deployed to Somalia during 1992 and 1993 " - again, dates don't match body
    • Fixed - they departed Australia in December 1992, but were in Somalia during the first few months of 1993. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9 should use endash, FN48 should use pp.
  • FN133: generally titles are not included in author names in citations
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
    • Removed all, except for where this is significant (e.g. that the Army newspaper is an official Department of Defence publication, so not independent) Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Contact a high-quality reliable source? Anzac Steel?
    • Contact is a professionally edited and published magazine sold in newsagents, etc. Not sure whether Anzac Steel is a RS, but the articles by Paul Handel are given that he's a professionally published expert on the topic (as the author of a work published by the Army tank museum and a supplement to the Army newspaper on the M113) Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the editorial policy for Contact? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 'About us' page [2] states that it's independent, and is edited by someone who was a journalist on official Defence newspapers. The longer version of the statement here says he left the full-time military and set up the magazine in order to be a "pain in the arse" to the military after feeling its official newspapers were being badly managed! He's apparently still a reservist in Army PR. This is a bit eccentric, but I think makes the cut. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in when you include location. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, I think. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 I reviewed and supported this article ant A class and assert that it is FAC standard. Some minor comments to show that I read it:

  • In Australian service, the M113 has has equipped armoured transport Suggest removing one of the "has".
  • From August 1965, M113A1s began to be fitted with armoured shields that comprised a front plate nd angled wings Suggest "and"
  • "Fitters" or "fitters"?
    • f for the role (only the first mention of the term) and F for the specific vehicles (all the others) - fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the quote about "no longer fit for purpose in anything but a benign operational environment", which raised the question of what purpose an armoured vehicle serves in a benign environment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. The source doesn't provide any details, but the Army's statement that the M113s can't be sent anywhere where regular combat is expected and the references saying that the type is now used for training says it all. I'd be guessing that M113s would be sent to somewhere like Timor Leste where the threat level is very low, especially to vehicles proof against small arms. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great intersection topic for an article, Nick. And an interesting read, I learned some new stuff. I have some comments/suggestions:

Lead
  • begs the question of how many are in service now or at a known recent date
    • All 431 upgraded vehicles are still in service according to The Military Balance - added. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say what sorts of missions and a few words each about the deployments in Somalia, Rwanda and East Timor
    • Noted that they were peacekeeping missions. I think that the lead sentence of this para notes what they were used for in all these operations.
  • link Rwanda
  • there is a fairly strong current of opinion saying that the M113 was never really suitable for high-intensity operations and this was known even in Vietnam, something about that should be in the lead
    • I haven't seen that in any sources regarding Australia, or the US. Could you suggest some? As the US extensively used the type in its frontline forces in Europe until the 1980s, it was presumably seen to be at least OK. The introduction of IFVs was a big jump in capability though. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comment in this ASPI article is the sort of thing I am talking about. I'll dig around for some others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added Hopkins' views on this - e.g. that the M113-equipped cavalry units were fit for purpose for low intensity conflicts, but not suited for conflicts where they'd be up against medium tanks or heavy anti-tank weapons. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that the decision on which vehicle will replace the M113 will be made in 2022, as it currently begs the question what vehicle will be replacing it
  • generally, interesting that the Army refers to the Vietnam-era basic version as the M113AS1
    • That is interesting - I hadn't seen this elsewhere. The sources consistently refer to them as M113A1s, with the Australian War Memorial also using this term. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • "In 1958, the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Sir Ragnar Garrett,"
  • "mortars", perhaps specify 81mm mortars, as we already had 3-inch mortars, of course
  • The para beginning "The adoption of" needs some tweaking. AFAIK none of this actually happened, so it just needs to made clear that these were only plans and were based on two divisions. Perhaps also mention that the two APC regiments were CMF units, and as I understand it, "armoured regiments" were tank-heavy (how many were envisioned, two?) Also, can I suggest "The armoured force was to include two APC regiments, the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers and the 8th/13th Victorian Mounted Rifles, both part-time Citizen Military Forces (CMF) units.[4] It was planned that each regiment would include 119 APCs.[5]"
    • Tweaked. Hopkins says that the two regiments did actually assume APC roles. The armoured regiments were to remain on pretty much their old structure, with three tank squadrons and a scout car troop in the HQ squadron. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • also suggest "to equip the Army's armoured units within the [[Royal Australian Armoured Corps]] (RAAC)."
    • Done - it is a good idea to bring this in earlier. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The American [[Food Machinery Corp]] (FMC) [[M113 armored personnel carrier|M113]], the British [[GKN Sankey]] [[FV432]] and the [[Avro Canada]] [[Bobcat (armoured personnel carrier)|Bobcat]] were considered."
    • For whatever reason, the literature on armoured vehicles doesn't place much attention on the companies who made them - the designation is usually the only thing used. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "at [[Mount Isa]], and hot and wet conditions at [[Mourilyan, Queensland|Mourilyan]]. The trials began with crew familiarisation and driver training on both types in the [[Innisfail, Queensland|Innisfail]] area. All these locations are in the state of [[Queensland]]."
    • Tweaked the first sentence of the para along these lines, which helps a lot Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • took a heavy toll on crew and passengers of the type
  • "being left unattended toexposed to the elements for 14 days"
    • Got rid of "to the elements" as well, given this is pretty obvious Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • are both of the trial vehicles still on display at the RAAC Museum?
    • I haven't seen a source that says (the Museum's website is pretty basic), but the photos on Commons suggest that both were still there over the last decade or so. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delink FMC if earlier suggestion adopted
  • "At this time, it was planned to retain the M113 in service until 1995."
  • any data on the thickness and metal/composite used for the armour?
    • I'm struggling to find this for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the original US Army M113s were powered" as they changed to the A1 diesel variant in 1964
  • "used to power buses" in Australia?
  • M113A1 FSV→M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle (FSV)
  • "In 1965 it was decided to structure the RAAC into armoured (tank), cavalry and APC regiments", I think that is right?
  • suggest mentioning 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron when mentioned initial issues in the Purchase and deliveries section
    • Added a bit about the initial troop later in the article (that they received M113A1s only shortly before departure) later in the article, which I think covers this off? Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be "fitters' vehicles", also "Fitters' vehicle" later
    • The sources are inconsistent on Fitter's vs Fitters, but Cecil (who is probably the leading expert on the topic and the most prolific author on the topic) uses Fitters, so I've gone with that. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Combined Arms Training Centre (Australia) for Armoured Centre
  • "Regiment, and 3rd/9th Light Horse (South Australian Mounted Rifles)"
  • 4 CAV is before my time, was it organised as a cavalry regiment or an APC one? Suggest specifying, because it is potentially confusing that 3 CAV was an APC regiment
    • It was a cavalry outfit - added. The organisational structure of the RAAC in the 1970s and 1980s is hard to follow, with few sources seeming to cover the topic, so it's hard to track what units were doing what. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to M113A1 variants and modifications section. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • overall, this RAND Corporation report is worth a read, as it has some details about what the troops thought of the M113 in East Timor, and some more details on the strengths and weaknesses of it in general. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a handy source! Added. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armoured Recovery Vehicle Light (ARVL) and use the initialisation thereafter
  • Armoured Command Vehicle (ACV) and use the initialisation thereafter
  • Tracked Load Carrier (TLC) and use the initialisation thereafter
  • can you fit in somewhere that the hull has a rectangular roof cargo hatch, which explains how the mortar is able to be fired from the vehicle?
  • what was the genesis of the T50 turret. Home-grown or an American mod?
    • Originally trialled by the US, but also by Australia - added. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was the turret electric or manual?
    • Manual, I think, but I'm struggling to find a reliable source that confirms this. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "were modified in South Vietnam as dedicated mine clearance vehicles"
  • "the Communist forces"→"the Viet Cong insurgents"
    • I think that regular NVA were also lifting the mines - it was a total fiasco. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire Support Vehicles (FSV) and use the initialisation thereafter
  • RAEME→[[Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME)]] and drop the later link and use the acronym
  • "using the turrets of all the Australian Army's Saladins" - the Army only had fifteen Saladins?
    • Yep. The Army purchased oddly small fleets of several wheeled armoured vehicles in the 1940s and 50s. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after "Maribyrnong, Victoria"
  • Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) and use the initialisation thereafter
  • any explicit mention of the lack of stabilisation in the turret?
  • "a M113 command and reconnaissance vehicle" what model was this?
  • Innisfail, Queensland
  • "Two command and reconnaissance variants of the M114 armoured fighting vehicle" did these have model designations?
  • comma after "Under Phase 1"
  • "too difficult to deploy" in what respect? Not air-portable?
    • Too heavy to be carried by C-130s and difficult to deploy via C-17s given they can only transport loads of that weight into major airports - added a clarification. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Operational history. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • if 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron is mentioned and linked earlier, unlink here
    • Linked in the lead photo and the first mention in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps say when the tank squadron deployed to and from South Vietnam?
  • "They were also often employed as armoured personnel carriers with their mortars removed"
  • unlink RAEME (and use RAEME not in full) here if linked and acronym introduced earlier
  • good call on redlinking 547 Signal Troop, the unit citation definitely makes it notable despite its size
    • Yeah, there's a large literature on this unit. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "land-clearing teams" what is meant here?
    • Clearing foliage - I've tweaked the term. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The FSVs proved unsatisfactory, as they were lightly armoured," do you mean compared to the Cent? Also, did they throw tracks and become bogged more easily due to their extra weight?
    • Clarified this. The source doesn't say why they threw tracks and became bogged more easily, but I suspect that you're correct. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps "approximately one in seven of the officers and men that served in the squadron between 1966 and 1972."
  • suggest "other than the tank-equipped armoured regiments" although there were M113s in 1 AR as well, I believe. Perhaps this could be tweaked?
    • Tweaked along these lines. None of the sources I've seen discuss how many M113s the 1st Armoured Regiment had, but there would have been a few - all in support roles of various types given that the cavalry/APC units handled troop mobility and reconaissance. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • mid-1977?
  • suggest "to support 1 RAR during the Operation Solace peacekeeping operation."
  • comma after "initially operated by B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment" there a few of these after unit names
  • "better suited to conditions in East Timor" how so?
  • "the Army considered them to be too vulnerable" to what? heavy machine guns, IEDs and anti-tank weapons?
    • IEDs primarily - clarified Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest piping the link to Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to "deployments of Australian Army units to Iraq" rather than just "to Iraq"

All done. Despite the unusually large number of comments on one of your articles, they are more MOS etc than substantive re: content. This is an excellent article, which I expect to enthusiastically support once all my comments have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: Many thanks for this great review - I really appreciate it. As noted in the nomination statement, this is one of the most complex articles I've developed, so I'm grateful you've gone through it critically. I think that I've now addressed your comments as best I can, noting that due to sourcing limitations I couldn't answer a few questions. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shame there isn't a source on the armour thickness, I believe it ranges from 44 mm on the front to 12 mm, but can't find a reliable source you could use for it. The obvious place would be a Jane's. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a copy of Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985-86 in a second hand bookshop today, and it didn't have armour thickness for any of its entries. I'll keep looking, as this has to be available for such an ancient APC. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
  • Footnote 88 is "Robards, Carrie (14 November 2019). "Programmed for the future" (PDF). Army. p. 2. Retrieved 15 November 2019." but footnote 141 is "Holloway, John (15 June 2017). "Combat brigades embrace changes" (PDF). Army. Department of Defence. p. 11. ISSN 0729-5685. Retrieved 3 January 2019" why the missing Department of Defense? See also 145, 153 and 157... which seem to differ from the others of the same source.
  • Footnote 145 ""Operation Astute". Department of Defence. Archived from the original on 6 July 2006. Retrieved 8 August 2020" is a deadlink
    • The archived link works for me? Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh. I was in the middle of the UP of Michigan, in the middle of a forest... I guess I'm lucky I could connect at all while being a passenger in a semi truck ... the wonders of modern technology! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a LOT of the sources that trace to the Australian government ... that's a concern about independence. We need to be aware and alert to using so many sources that are governmental without being sure that there aren't counterveiling views outside the governmental sources.
    • I don't think that I'd agree with that. I've scoured works like Australian National Audit Office reports (the ANAO is independent of government and reports directly to Parliament), parliamentary committee reports, the independent defence media, history books and websites, etc, to ensure balanced coverage and the use of independent sources. For instance, by noting that the upgrade project was a mess which the ANAO, parliament and independent defence media uncovered, and the official history of Australia in the Vietnam War's criticisms of the M113A1 fire support vehicle. Ronald Hopkins' book is a standard history on the subject, and is at times highly critical of government and Army decisions in the era this article covers so while this was published by the Australian Government Publishing Service I think can be regarded as an independent history unless there are critical assessments/reviews. The 'official' Australian Government references are to support uncontroversial facts, and I don't think that they're particularly large in number. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not convinced. I'll leave this for other reviewers to consider. I'll try to get back to do a full review and stuff later... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you could provide examples of where you think the sourcing is problematic it would be helpful here (e.g. is your concern with Hopkins? - a Google Books search of Hopkins shows that it's been very widely cited by other historians [5]). Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't so much a specific thing or two .. but the fact that so much of the article is based on sources closely connected with the government/army. It makes it more concerning that it may (and I stress may, because I haven't got the sources to investigate deeper) only reflect one side of any issues. I'm leaving it out for other reviewers to look at hoping that they DO have the sources to make sure that proper balance is presented. An analogy would be ... if I was writing about an American Civil War battle and only used sources from southern historical societies. They would likely not be incorrect in the facts but would probably have a set of blinkers that would need to be balanced by other sources. Does that make sense? Because I'm not up on modern Australian military history and writings, I can't begin to say whether or not there IS another side to reflect, but part of a source review is looking at the balance of sourcing and seeing if there MAY be an issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ealdgyth: Thanks for your review - please see my responses above. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Caption: is their a link for T-50? When I saw the first image I assumed a T-50 tank, which seemed odd.
    • No, and I don't think that the T50 turret is notable in isolation: most sources discuss it in the context of Australian M113s. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1958, the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Sir Ragnar Garrett, initiated a program to modernise the Army's organisation and equipment so that it was compatible with those of Australia's allies, particularly the United States Army." As it is the start of the stand-alone main article, could 'Australian' be inserted before "Army's"?
  • Why does "Pentronic" have an upper case P?
    • I've just checked some sources, and it turns out it doesn't need to be capitalised - done Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Army's APC, armoured and reconnaissance units". I understand the last two, but what is an APC unit. And were they not alsp intended to equip mechanised infantry units? Ah, explained later. It does leave a reader scratching their head, but I can't think of a good way around it.
    • I've added a sentence to explain this - APC-equipped units were used to transport infantry as the Army didn't have any mechanised infantry units. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and one of these vehicles in Australia" seems a little wordy. Why not just 'and one in Australia'?
  • "and armed fitted with two M1919A4 Browning machine guns". A typo?
  • "though the commander lacked armoured protection while using the weapon." Optional: add 'in this way'.
    • I think that's confusing as these guns were mounted on the roof of the turret and it would be difficult at best to re-install them inside the turret during operations. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was decided that the new AFV would use the turret of a FV101 Scorpion". What gun was this turret equipped with?
  • "Numbers, Houston & Handel: I don't get the total given.
    • Oops! I'd left out the ambulance variant (of which exactly zero information is available other than numbers...) - added. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carries medical equipment and wounded personnel." I know what you mean, but maybe something like 'Carries medical equipment and bays for evacuating wounded personnel'?
  • "M125AS4 Armoured Mortar". In the notes section, could it give the type and/or calibre of mortor used?
  • "and fewer could be carried on ships." That could be read too ways. I assume that you don't mean that some models could no longer be carried on ships, but I am guessing.
    • No - because they are bigger and heavier, a smaller number can be loaded onto a given ship. I've clarified this. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a Light Aid Detachment." Why the upper case initials?
  • "Each of the cavalry troops was equipped with 12 M113A1s, and was organised into a headquarters with four APCs and three sections each with three APCs." That doesn't add up.
  • "due to health and safety concerns". I'm curious.
    • Ditto. The source doesn't say why I'm afraid, and there's nothing in the archives of The Canberra Times in the Trove service (though it looks like this APC was painted with anti-apartheid slogans in 1972 [6]). I'd guess that it was due to sharp edges on the damaged components or similar. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. I was guessing asbestos-related.
That's possible as well. The sources don't say I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The CMF RAAC units were authorised eight M113A1s". The whole sentence may be a little more graspable if 'each' were inserted before "authorised".
  • "the age of the vehicles and their obsolescent communications and navigation systems proved to be a limitation." This leaves me wanting to know what the limitation was; although I suspect that the sentence needs rephrasing.
    • Added a bit - lack of GPS stands out. The source goes into this in more detail than casual readers are likely to be interested in. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manoeuvre support vehicles". What is a manoeuvre support vehicle?

A fine and readable article, my nit picking above notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for this careful review - I think that I've now actioned all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder, just a note to say I hope to review this in next day or so. JennyOz (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, just a reminder/check up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog and Nick, still on it - roughly 80% down now. JennyOz (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, wow that was hard. For someone who knows knew nothing about "tanks", it meant deeper reading than I'd say most anyone else approaching this article would already understand. (And I do also mean the 14-year-old - they would actually know more because they play computer games!) It took me days to read and make my comments. There were only a very few suggestions I was pretty sure about but I decided not make any edits myself. So, sorry it took so long and if I've ruined your weekend with my naivety! Thanks for the education - I'm genuinely glad to have learnt so much. Here goes...

  • add aus eng and dmy templates?

acquisition - trials

  • Sir Ragnar Garrett - not knighted til 59 so we still use "Sir"? (I've never been sure the protocol for this eg would we say Sir Winston Churchill attended xyz preschool?)
  • 81 mm mortars - is L16 81mm mortar?
  • for tracked APCs was issued - wlink tracked? (though that wlink appears much later at caterpillar tracks)
    • Link moved forward as suggested Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • similar to a British War Office Policy Statement issued - wlink British War Office
  • Army's wheeled scout cars and - wlink Scout car
  • superior off road performance - hyphen off-road
    • Done, and linked for good measure. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • between the Australian and British Governments - lowercase g (because British Government is not actual title?)
  • The trials began with crew familiarisation and driver training on both types in the Innisfail area. Once this was complete, the four vehicles were driven 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) to Mount Isa to conduct hot and dry trials. - mention Innisfail is tropical/wet/coastal (ie v Isa dry)?
    • This is noted later in the para. The activities at Innisfail at this stage seem to have been essentially preparations rather than the tropical climate part of the trials. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to conduct hot and dry trials - conditions?
  • found the M113's poor ventilation took - M113s' (ie both of them?)
    • This is referring to the design, rather than the individual vehicles, per-se. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • through jungles and on sandy beaches - maybe pipe jungle to Tropical rainforest
  • removal of every inspection plate - any wlink for what is an inspection plate?
    • No, but I've linked to 'Vehicle inspection'. The plates seem to be removable covers which can be used to access otherwise inaccessible mechanical equipment. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rubber flotation screen - wlink Nicholas Straussler#Military flotation devices? (it mentions the FV432)
    • Done. It's odd that we don't have an article on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

purchase and deliveries

  • General Motors V6 diesel engine - any wlink?
    • No - the exact model was a '6V-53 Detroit Diesel engine', which I've added though. It seems our coverage of these engines starts in the 1970s. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle - is different beast to M1131 Fire Support Vehicle?
  • given to the Australian Regular Army's APC units- wlink (Army linked only in lede so far?)
    • I've just added an earlier link. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • allocate them to units involved in the Vietnam War - wlink (war linked only in lede so far?)

M113A1 variants (list)

  • The mortar was mounted inside the rear hull - wlink hull to Chassis
  • They are armed with a M2 Browning - this change in tense (ie "are") is intentional?
    • Nope, missed it when I changed from present to past tense - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • extended by erecting a canvas tent - attached?


Vietnam-era modifications

  • Vietnam-era modifications - vietnam war-era, or is that military talk?
    • Vietnam War-era is clearer - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fitted with armoured shields that comprised - wlink Gun shield
  • fitted to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam's M113s.[40] [41] - remove space between refs
  • turrets between September - wlink Gun turret#Combat vehicles
  • cupola - Gun turret#Cupola
  • The gun proved unsatisfactory, as it was very difficult - comma not needed?
  • that few targets the Australian Army was likely - were likely?
  • boom of truck tires on each side - tyres?
    • Yes - and this shows how much I know about vehicles! Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which were used detonate mines - to detonate
  • by the Communist forces - wlink or opposition/enemy forces?
    • We don't seem to have a single article on the various Communist forces of the war, but I've tweaked the text to note that these were the Australian Army's opponents. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire support vehicles

  • until an air portable - hyphen
  • requirement for an air portable - hyphen

post vietnam

  • predictive gunsights and had - any wlink? I understand gunsights but not "predictive"

other variants

  • had previously been trialled in early 1964 - previously not needed?

numbers

  • Included one M113A1 purchased in 1965.[64] - remove fullstop?

M113 upgrade program

  • Between 500 and 1,000 AFVs were to be procured - I'm confused. APCs and AFVs are not interchangeable terms? They both carry personnel but AFVs have other function/s also?
    • "Armoured fighting vehicle" is the generic term for armoured vehicles capable of being used in military combat (and is linked early in the article). An APC is a type of AFV which specialises in carrying personnel. I used AFV here per the source - it seems that the Army was interested in a very wide range of vehicles, including APCs, infantry fighting vehicles (essentially better-armed APCs) and armoured reconnaissance vehicles which may not have carried any personnel. If you're confused, take comfort in knowing that the Army was as well - I created an article recently on Project Waler, which was a total fiasco largely as the Army didn't actually know what it was looking for and grossly under-estimated what the vehicles would cost. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the target study phase of - hyphen
  • engine cooling system - wlink
  • As a result, the project was cancelled in October 2000 - is that phase 1 or 2 or combined?
    • I've tried to clarify this - basically Defence decided that the proposal to do both stages of work at the same time was a bad idea, and cancelled work on it. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • business case - wlink
  • Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement - is this worthy of a redlink? Has had so many titles (defence industry, supply, materiel, etc) over the years. Also PSs are now called Assistant Ministers. Yet, I see Greg Combet's article has "appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement" so is it a catchall term no matter the ministry name?
    • I think that a redlink is justified as it's been a significant position at times (and we have very detailed coverage of other equivalent positions, so it's likely that someone will create an article for this at some stage) Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is because they do not - maybe 'use in combat as they do not provide adequate
    • I think that might lead to an overly lengthy/complex sentence. I've slightly tweaked the wording here. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The M113s that were not upgraded were disposed of - had not been upgraded
    • I don't think that's an improvement, largely as the upgraded vehicles were phased into service while the non-upgraded ones were phased out. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred to the Australian War Memorial - for exhibition? (apropos current debate re AWM extensions - 'it's a memorial not a museum, send the big stuff to Mitchell')
    • As you note, a lot of what the AWM has in its collection isn't on display, so I think that the current wording is safest. The AWM also rotates items on and off display. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Memorial later received a M577A1. - also received?
    • The M577A1 seems to have been donated well after the M113 APC. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variants table - some notes have/have not full stops
  • fitted with new T150F tracks and sprockets - wlink sprocket
  • modifications added 2.5 tonnes of weight for the AS3 variants and up to 5.5 tonnes - convert these two weights?
  • and we understand them really well".[90] - LQ full stop inside quotes
    • Sorry, I don't understand this one? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, per MOS:LQ. The sentence: "We are using ... understand them really well." is a complete sentence in the source with its own full stop (and cap on We). (I'm not particularly bothered though. Lots of editors, including me, find LQ confusing.) JennyOz (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to protect the Australian logistics base - pipe wlink 1st Australian Logistic Support Group?
  • The hulls of most these AFVs were - most of
  • Bowral for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting - insert Regional (ie not a full CHOGM per Incidents on CHOGM article)
  • The ASLAV was selected for this role - maybe Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV)?
    • 'ASLAV' is the common (and essentially dominant) name here Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a ten man team from - hyphen
  • used two United Nations M113s - not a variant so use possessive? ie United Nations' M113s
  • consistency - "an" M1 v "a" M1
    • Standardised on 'a M113', etc. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency - M2A2 Howitzers v M2A2 howitzers
  • consistency - gunsight v gun sight
    • Standardised on 'gun sight' Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency - Defence White Paper v Defence White Paper

ref orders

  • accordingly the M113 was selected.[13][10]
  • Saracen wheeled APCs.[31][28]

Done. I sincerely appreciate how much went into writing this article and thank you for it. JennyOz (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Jenny. I'm going to be travelling for most of the weekend, but will get stuck into these excellent comments when I return. I'm grateful for the time you've taken here. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JennyOz: Thanks again for this careful review. I've responded to your comments above, and in the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tables need work per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've added captions, but otherwise the tables look to have been in accordance with this? Please let me know if I've missed anything. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Row and col scopes too, for screen-readers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. The formatting for rows is screwy and doesn't seem necessary given the examples at MOS:DTT (this whole thing has 'I can't believe it's not automated in 2021' vibes about it...). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/M113_armoured_personnel_carriers_in_Australian_service/archive1&oldid=1006350470"