Jump to content

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

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].


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

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"?

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
  • 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]
  • 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
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)."
  • 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."
  • 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]]."
  • took a heavy toll on crew and passengers of the type
  • "being left unattended toexposed to the elements for 14 days"
  • are both of the trial vehicles still on display at the RAAC Museum?
  • 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?
  • "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
  • 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]

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

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
  • 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]

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.
  • "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?
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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]

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...

acquisition - trials

purchase and deliveries

M113A1 variants (list)


Vietnam-era modifications

Fire support vehicles

post vietnam

other variants

numbers

M113 upgrade program

ref orders

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]

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.