Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article covers the Australian Army's use of M113 armored personnel carriers since 1964. For most of this period they were the most numerous, and possibly the most important, type of armoured vehicle in the Army's fleet. The article covers the large numbers of variants operated by Australia, including a bungled recent major upgrade project which delivered 400 essentially obsolete vehicles, and their operational service in South-East Asia, Somalia and Rwanda.

When I started work on this article last year, I thought it would be a fairly simply project. Instead, it's turned out to have been one of the most difficult articles I've worked on due to the lack of any comprehensive sources and sheer complexity of the topic. I think that the article as it stands is sufficiently comprehensive for A-class, but has room to be improved. I'm looking forward to other editors' comments, and thank you in advance for them. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Support from Hawkeye7

Impressive effort. Quite a few bits where I was saying: "I did not know that." I congratulate you. Some minor comments:

  • I went looking to see if there were any coloured images of M113s in Vietnam instead of the one at the top. Regrettably, most seem to have been taken in 1970, and will not be PD for another few months. You could consider File:Armoured personnel carrier (APC) Driver and Commander from A Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment.jpg.
    • Yeah, it's a bit frustrating. A lot of the best photos on the AWM's database also seem to be images donated to them by soldiers, so won't be PD next year as well. I quite like the lead image, as it doesn't seem particularly posed, but that's a much better image of an M113 with a gun shield than was in the 'Employment' section, so have swapped it in. Thanks for uploading it. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider the use of M113s in ambushes (using large numbers of claymores) an important tactical innovation. But at least you mentioned it.
  • Why is "road wheel" (red) linked?
    • delinked

Some typos (including a couple I'm not sure of):

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick. Nice work as always. I reviewed this for GA and see that it has been expanded some more since then. I have a few minor suggestions, but otherwise believe it meets the A-class criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll try to take this on. It may take me a day or too, I'm a bit busy in RL right now. Hog Farm Bacon 03:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished Fire support vehicles, so there will be more comments coming over the next few days. Hog Farm Bacon 19:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gloss LRV at the first use of the acronym, unless I'm missing where it's explained earlier in the prose
  • "each comprised four wheeled and tracked options" - Shouldn't it be four-wheeled, since it's used as an adjective, not four being the number of "wheeled and tracked options"
    • Oddly, each proposal had to include four different types of vehicles (Project Waler is often given as an example of a fiasco by works on Australian military procurement). Tweaked to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " consideration was given to replacing the M113s with infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) such as the American M2 Bradley. These AFVs were judged to be too expensive and difficult to deploy. - I feel like the instance of AFV should be IFV to make it clear the IFVs are being referred to
  • "Cabinet approved the M113 Major Upgrade Project in June 2002, and a contract was signed with Tenix the next month" - Not sure if this is the best way to start this sentence. If the Army had approved the project, it wouldn't quite be right to start a sentence with "Army approved the M113...", so I'm not convinced starting it with Cabinet is the best option.

I'm now through all of the Vietnam-related stuff in the service history, hopefully I can get the three other sections taken care of later today. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I think. Nice work here, willing to discuss any of these points. Hog Farm Bacon 01:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.