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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~

"The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
"Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
"but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
"while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:Split and fixed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a go at tweaking the wording. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: - can you take another look here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
- Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
"The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
"the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
Wikilink "Dnepr River"
- I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
- done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
- @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
  - I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm good.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: - can you take another look please? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in the infobox you have "99 rounds" for the main armament, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body Done
"was never type classified..." is it possible to explain what this means, and why it is significant?
- No reliable sources define it.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "total of 962 vehicles were produced from 1943 to 1945", but in the body "Deliveries of the T48 were made in 1942 and 1943, with 50 arriving in 1942 followed by a further 912 in 1943". This is inconsistent because the later implies that the vehicles were actually produced from 1942 to 1943, not 1943 to 1945. DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

The lead mentions Bagration, but the body does not, or at least not explicitly.
- Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a line about the 57mm gun being superseded in US and UK service by the 75mm gun/17pdr. Done
- Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant to say in the lead - guess I wasn't clear. That would explain to the reader why it saw no combat with US or UK forces. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a related point, I'd assume that the US no longer wanted them once the M10 became available - anything in your sources make mention of this? Done
- None of them mention.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This discusses the background to the M10 development (specifically pages 4 and 5) - it doesn't reference the T48 specifically, but it talks about the early generation of M3-based TDs fielded by the US Army being stop-gap designs until a purpose-built TD could be designed. That should be sufficient for what I'd like to see added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parsecboy: Good now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Watch ENGVAR - mix of BrEng and AmEng, when it should be AmEng - forex, I see "tonnes" and "petrol".
- Removed--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Vertical volute" is not a proper noun.
- Decapitalized--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume the 5 .30 caliber rifles and 22 grenades would be the personal armament of the crew? I find that a bit odd to include in the vehicle's armament.
- Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any description of the crew positions?
- Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably alphabetize the list of operators. Done Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: are you happy with this now? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (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.