Talk:Project Waler/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Great article on a much-maligned project that was running when I joined the Army. Very little to quibble about here:

• in the lead, for defence procurement process, link Military acquisition
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• it may not be in the source, but "the Waler horses that had been used by the Army" is a bit generic, and perhaps should reflect they are most closely associated with the WWI light horse.
  • Added Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• it would be good to say how long the M113s had been in service at this point
  • Good point - I've added a para on the history of the M113s. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• link Technology transfer
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• suggest "The lead contractor was required to be an Australian firm, but they could partner with foreign companies."
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• should it be "the Minister for Defence, Gordon Scholes,"?
• same for "The Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley,"?
  • Yes for the first, no for the second, I think. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• suggest "He gave as examples the expected weight of the vehicles' armour preventing them from being carried by the RAAF's C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and the project documents requiring that they have the "capacity ... to keep going for a period of one hour after a nuclear attack on the battlefield with a loss of half its crew."
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• The Canberra Times observation is all very well, but can anything be said about the fact that the ASLAV could not have replaced the primary M113 role of APC due to troop-carrying capacity?
  • I've added a bit to clarify they were intended mainly as reconnaissance vehicles. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• suggest "Schaetzel argued that Project Waler was, like the 1960s Australian light destroyer project,"
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Is there not any analysis post-Schaetzel? Perhaps his analysis should be dated to the year is was made?
  • There hasn't been much, unfortunately. I've added some comments from a fairly recent ASPI report which reached similar conclusions. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• is there any info available about the estimated costs the project came up with and by which the Army was so shocked?
  • Not that I've been able to find, I'm afraid. The relevant NAA files haven't been digitalised which might explain why no-one has published this. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• The Defence Force Journal (presumably Issue 80 January/February 1990, the link on the ADFJ site doesn't work) article "The Motorization of the Australian Army" makes some observations about the tendency of those running the project to fall prey "to a desire to incorporate more and more into the equipment" (like similar US projects). Might be worth a read.
  • That's useful - added. The Navy's light destroyer project suffered from the same problem - the team responsible for developing the specifications for the ships didn't have any responsibility to also ensure that they were affordable, so the light destroyer design evolved over time from a low-end and affordable warship to a very impressive warship that couldn't be afforded. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That's it, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: thanks a lot for these excellent comments - I think that I may have now actioned them. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

All good. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by a map and photographs with acceptable licensing and appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)