Talk:Project Waler

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Australian Army named a program to acquire new armored vehicles after an Australian horse?

• Reviewed: KRZY (AM)

Created by Nick-D (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

• Hi The Bushranger, review follows: article created 26 January and exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't pick up any overly close paraphrasing from the online sources used; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; a QPQ has been carried out. All looks good here - Dumelow (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

AFVs

The usual convention is to use a term in full, followed by its shorthand notation - but the second paragraph of History uses AFV without any indication of its meaning. Consider amending the first sentence thus:

Project Waler … sought to replace the Australian Army's M113 armoured personnel carriers with new armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs).

Conversely, ASLAV is used twice, but readers haven't a clue what it means unless they click on the link. Consider amending the third sentence thus:

The M113s were upgraded instead, though some were replaced by the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV) [wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that were] that was similar …

and deleting "wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that were"
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done with the first, but 'ASLAV' is the common/dominant name for the vehicle, with 'Australian Light Armoured Vehicle' being little-used. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "...the resultant vehicles being unfit for combat.."'

Regarding the statement in the introduction "...the resultant vehicles being unfit for combat..":

I dispute this statement, plus it needs further clarification as to which upgrade they are referring - is to the AS4 specification under te Land 106 project? Besides, Australia fleet of M113s went on to serve for many years after Project Waler was cancelled, and saw active duty in Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994-95 and East Timor from 1999 to 2002., and as of January 2023, over 400 are still in service.

Please note that I do not dispute the fact that the Land 400 project which saw these vehicles upgraded to the AS4 specification was not without serious problems, nor that they are the most capable AFV available, And I also realise that quite a few were subsequently retired from service due to mechanical issues, but that is FAR from the generalised statement that the entire class of vehicles are "unfit for combat".

I have therefore added the 'citation needed' tag and am of the opinion that if this sentence is to remain as it currently reads, it needs to be qualified and cite a reliable source.

~~~ Blammy1 (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see the section that discusses the M113 upgrades and alternatives. There is a citation to Davies, Andrew (17 November 2015). "ADF capability snapshot 2015: Part 3 – Army" (PDF). Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Retrieved 10 August 2021. It states: "The M113 armoured personnel carrier is no longer fit for purpose in anything but a benign operational environment." – Zntrip 05:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, the Department of Defence has admitted that the M113AS4s are unfit for combat (at least by Australian standards). See M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service#Plan Beersheba Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)