Talk:Long Range Desert Group
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Long Range Desert Group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Long Range Desert Group has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Equipment
[edit]If the majority used the Lee Enfield No. I Mk III rifles, it clear that some used other types. So its better just to claim they used Lee-Enfield rifles. Unless we can prove they only exclusively used the No.1 Mk III. The British Army at the time were issued the Rifle, No. 4 Mk I. The Colonial armies tended to keep the older version.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are numerous photos available on the net and in books which show nothing but No.I Mk III*, nor do author's like O'Carroll mention the No. 4 except to say it was very rarely used. To simply state "Lee Enfield rifle" could mean anything to the uninitiated; the article is meant to be read by a wide range of people, not just military enthusiasts who know something about equipment and weaponary - being specific reduces confusion for everyone. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Rifle, No. 4 Mk I was intend to replace the No. I Mk III in all the Empire armies however war intervened before sufficient rifles had been made, and as many rifles had been lost at Dunkirk the British Army at home received priority for replacements. Hence troops in other areas had to make-do with the No. I Mk III which was just as good, the shipping space required for issuing the new rifles abroad to replace perfectly-good rifles already issued not being thought justifiable at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, at the time of its inception the LRDG had no official approval for allocation of weapons and so had to make do with items 'scrounged' from non-official sources, including captured enemy stocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
PIAT
[edit]Why does the article now claim that the LRDG uses PIATs - when the PIAT didn't enter service until Sicily?
Also the claims for sticky bombs and Lewes bombs sound much more like Stirling's SAS than the LRDG. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"The daytime temperatures could reach 60 °C (140 °F) "
[edit]In the section titled "History", the claim "The daytime temperatures could reach 60 °C (140 °F)" seems unlikely, as the highest recorded surface temperature on earth is only 56.7 °C (Formerly 57.8 °C) according to this page: Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.166.81 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Official temperature readings, as noted in the Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth page, are recorded "shielded from direct sunlight". In the areas in which the LRDG routinely operated there is no shade and thus, as the same page notes, ground temperatures can be considerably higher. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Long Range Desert Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524232651/http://mcwarr.orconhosting.net.nz/lrdg/lrdgmain.html to http://mcwarr.orconhosting.net.nz/lrdg/lrdgmain.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"Popular culture": changes reverted
[edit]I would like to know why my addition of a comic book series (by a famous author!) about the LRDG was reverted and thus removed from the "Popular culture" section... Comic books about a military unit are the perfect example of a popular culture depiction of said military unit! The removal is particularly ridiculous when «two of the entries in that "popular culture" section are about historical documentaries. So, comic books are not popular culture but historical documentaries are?! Carry on... Gazilion (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I explained in my edit summary, we have no article on the comic book and you provided no third party ref (or any ref) that shows this is a notable use or even that it actually exists. If the comic book is notable then someone will have written a review, or other description, that shows notability. Basically anyone can write a comic book, novel, song, video game or anything else that mentions the LRDG, we aren't going to mention all of them here unless they are notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- GA-Class New Zealand articles
- Low-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class Africa articles
- Low-importance Africa articles
- GA-Class Libya articles
- Low-importance Libya articles
- WikiProject Libya articles
- GA-Class Tunisia articles
- Low-importance Tunisia articles
- WikiProject Tunisia articles
- GA-Class Zimbabwe articles
- Low-importance Zimbabwe articles
- WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- GA-Class Rhodesia articles
- Mid-importance Rhodesia articles
- Rhodesia task force articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors