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

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]

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

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

I'm satisfied with all the licensing except File:East timor independence un2.jpg. It claims to be the work of a notable scholar (Geoffrey C. Gunn) but without any OTRS evidence that he actually created and released the image.
- The image was originally uploaded by someone called GCG 200 (talk · contribs) (note the initials) and has metadata which indicates it's self-created, so I think this is fine. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image layout is consistent with MOS. (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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):

"Innesfail" should be "Inisfail"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier" should be "Variants of the M113 armoured personnel carrier"
- The article is at Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"self protection" should be "self-protection" ?
"roadwheels" should be "road wheels"
"M114 armored fighting vehicle" should be "M114 armoured fighting vehicle"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"mid 1990s" shoul be "mid-1990s" ?
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Tennix" should be "Tenix"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Pucapunyal" should be "Puckapunyal" tsk tsk
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 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]

in the lead, The Australian Army has operated large numbers of M113 armoured personnel carriers since 1964. Should this be 1962, given that was when the first variants were acquired for trials?
- I think that 1964 is the more meaningful date, given that the trials were a separate process. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, should Rwanda be linked to UNAMIR?
- Added to the relevant part of the article's body. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orders were placed during the 1963–64 financial year: full year range now per MOS:YEARRANGE
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This variant was used to recover other vehicles from the field[28] --> missing full stop
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in the numbers table, I suggest tweaking the "Acquired" heading to read "Date acquired" or "Years acquired". The final row in this column could also summarise the year range, "1962-1979"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"newly-acquired" remove the hyphen, I think: [1]
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bandiana is overlinked
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier was established --> "At the time the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron was established"
- Oops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if possible, I suggest adding another image to the Acquisition section to try to break up the text a little
- Good point - I've added a photo of what looks like a brand new M113 in 1965. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a longer 1,200 kilometres (750 mi) route back to Innisfail --> "a further 1,200 kilometres (750 mi) back to Innisfail"
in the Bibliography, suggest adding hyphens to the ISBN for Bou, for consistency
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
same as above for Prenatt
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN or OCLC for Handel 1998?
- OCLC added Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
for the Blaxland 2012 source, perhaps mention the Australian War Memorial as the publisher?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: all appear to be reliable for what they are citing based on publishers and authors. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the review. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

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]

APC needs a link/gloss at the first mention
- Oops, done Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also ditto for AFV
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What were the design differences for the ARVL variant of the M113A1? Design differences are given for the other variants.
- The sources were irritatingly non-specific - the best I could find led to the explanation that 'this variant was used to recover other vehicles from the field'. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link Bandiana at the first mention, not the second
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which could fire high explosive, canister and smoke rounds - Link canister to Canister (projectile) if that's the correct meaning. (I'm much more familiar with 19th-century warfare than 20th)
- Yep, linked. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 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
- Removed. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

" IFVs to replace the M113s from 2025. - from seems really odd here
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 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]

Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 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.