Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle[edit]

Nominator(s): Randomness74 (talk)

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is my first shot at an A-class review and the first in (hopefully) a long series of World War II tanks, which I'm trying to make into a good topic. This article has passed GA review, and I firmly believe this article meets A-class standards. Regards to all reviewers, Randomness74 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see a detailed article on one of the the under-appreciated workhorses of armoured units. However, I think that this article currently needs a fair amount of further work to reach A-class status. I have the following comments:

  • "It was phased out after the introduction of the M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle" - can you provide an approximate date range here? Done
  • I think that the 'specifications' section should start from first principles in describing this vehicle. For instance, the reference in the first sentence to its length "when the boom was fully extended" is confusing as it's not previously indicated that the vehicle had a boom, or what it was used for. Done
    • It was actually previous mentioned in the lead, but I have made it more clear what a boom is in the body.--Randomness74 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This really does need to go back to first principles: start with a description of what this vehicle was before giving readers its dimensions. Assume that they don't have a clue what a tracked tank recovery vehicle is. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • "the engine varied between which variant of the M4 Sherman it was based upon" - ditto - please explain why these variations existed (because the M32s were diverted from the standard M4 production lines?)  Done
  • "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles for the D-day Invasion. However, they did not desire to use the British armored recovery vehicles, because they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made with M4 Sherman tanks, such as the AVRE or the BARV" - the grammar here is awkward. Also, the US Army didn't procure vehicles only for the D-Day landing: its entire operating model was to ruthlessly standardise its fleets, with vehicles intended to be general purpose and suited for varying conditions across entire campaigns. Presumably the M32 was intended to support the fleets of M4s in European conditions, and presumably also built on lessons learnt by the US Army in North Africa as well as British combat experiences Done
  • Why was the M4 selected as the basis of this design? (presumably to simplify its production and ensure commonality and the availability of spare parts in combat zones) Done
  • What was the role of the M32: was it intended to support units equipped with M4s, or was it used more widely?
  • "They also converted 298 M32B3s" - what vehicles were converted? Done
  • The service history section should discuss how successful this vehicle proved to be: what were its good and bad features? Did it prove suitable for its intended purpose? Do historians regard it as having been a success?
    • I would have added much more, but there are no sources for this...--Randomness74 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I've found a few sentences on this. I would be able to find more if anybody could find a place that has the United States Army Combat Forces Journal.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that Pershings weren't introduced into service in any significant numbers during the war, the claim that it was considered unsuccessful as it couldn't move them is questionable. The use of these vehicles for mine clearance is also missing: Chamberlin and Ellis discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @NickD:I have made clarifications on the statements about ratings in quality to avoid confusion. Also, Which page does it mention mine clearance? I could not find it when I searched through the book.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain the purpose of the vehicle's armament: this was presumably for self defence only as the M32 wasn't a combat vehicle. Done
  • Was the US Army the only operator of the M32, or were they exported to Allied countries? (as was common with M4 variants)  Done

--Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

Oh dear.

  • "The M32s were used after 1944, such as during the D-Day and the European Theater" makes no sense. Done
  • "It had between 0.5–2 in (13–51 mm) depending where the location of the armour is" makes no sense either. Done
  • "they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made" ditto  Done
  • "However, some remained in service during the Korean War after the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954" but the Korean War ended in 1953.  Done
  • "The M32 had a 30-ton winch, 18 ft boom, and an A-model jib." Add convert template to convert feet to metres. Done
  • "It weighed either 64,300 lb (4,590 st) (M32, M32B1, and M32B3), or 67,600 lb (4,830 st) (M32B2) depending on the model" Why on Earth are we converting from pounds to stones? Convert to kilograms. Done
  • " It had was equipped with an A-frame jib, a 30 short tons (27 t) winch" Use adj=on in the convert template, and delete "had" Done
  • "The armament were used only for self-defense, as it was only a recovery vehicle and was not to be used in combat" This could be phrased better. Done
  • "They served in the Italian Campaign (World War II), Operation Overlord, and many other battles during the European Theater." Disambiguate the Italian campaign, and change "during" to "in" Done
  • "They also converted 298 M4A3 Shermans into M32B3s from May to December 1944." Delete "also" and change "from" to "between"  Done
  • "the horsepower of the engine were insufficient to pull large tanks" Change "were" to "was" Done
  • "it was never put on the production line" should be "it was never put into production " Done
  • FN 12 is incorrect, and missing a closing parenthesis  Done Fixed this one for you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link A-frame, synchromesh, winch Done
  • Change category "Armoured recovery vehicles" to "Armoured recovery vehicles of the United States" Done
  • Delete category "Military recovery vehicles" Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes, including adding locations where they were missing, adding some links, and correcting the spelling of Ian V. Hogg's name.

  • The infobox says that 1,582 were produced, but it doesn't say this in the article. The numbers in the Production history section add up to 1,670, which indicates that something is wrong. Correct the error, and add the total to the Production history section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox says "In service: July 1943 to May 1945", however, it seems it should include Korean War service also? Equally, the body of the article provides 1944 as the in service date, so it is inconsistent with the infobox Done
  • provide an indicative date here: "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles in order to use in combat..." Done
  • "because they did not prefer the modifications the British": what was their objection to those variants?
  • this seems quite awkward: "The reason the engines varied depending on the variant of the M4 Sherman the vehicle was based on because M32s were either directly converted from M4 Sherman models or were made from M4 Sherman chassis before the turret was added."
  • "OCM 21553 standardized..." what is OCM 21553?
  • seems awkward: "They instead made another variant of the M4 Sherman, so the Ordnance Department made several prototypes." Done
  • seems repetitive: "The M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle replaced the M32B1A1s after the Korean War[8] after the production of heavier tanks such as the M46 Patton. They remained in service during the Korean War. Soon after the war, the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954." Done
  • in the lead "used by the United States during World War II and the Korean War", but the infobox says it was also used by UK forces
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, I've made the change for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the crew should be mentioned in the specifications, mentioning their roles
  • "The M32 entered service with the US Army in 1944": what units was it issued to, and on what scale?
  • Ditto as first comment.--Randomness74 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seen, sorry. Can you please be more specific? For instance, please provide an exact quote of where you mention this so I can search for it as I have read through several times and still seem to be missing this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I'm hoping for something like: "They served in the Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, and many other battles in the European Theater of Operations, being issued to X type of unit (for instance maybe an armoured regiment) on a scale of X per X (sub unit e.g. coy)" ... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no clue what units they were handed to because I could not find any sources that have unit information.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, from what I can tell they were issued at company and battalion level. I found a few sources on Google Books. For instance, this provides something in relation to the Korean War: [1]. This has something about armored infantry battalions in World War II: [2]. And, this has something regarding cavalry TO&E: [3]. This mentions some Marine Corps usage up to around 1958, I think: [4]. There is possibly more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the See also section is probably redundant as the M74 is already linked in the body of the article Done
  • the Production history section should mention the total number produced, as Hawkeye has suggested above Done
  • I did some copyediting, but to be honest I think it still needs work. I will try to come back with fresh eyes later, but suggestion maybe placing a request at the WP:GOCE
    • @Randomness74: G'day, Randomness, not sure if you have seen these comments or not. If you get a chance, can you please let me know if you will be able to work on these? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EyeTruth[edit]

Lede

  • 〜 Pending. Lima Locomotives started production of the vehicles in June 1943, with five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s. Pressed Steel Car produced 163 M32s and 475 M32B1s in 1944. They also produced 298 M32B3s. Baldwin Locomotive produced 195 M32B1s, while 398 M32B1s were produced by Federal Machine before the end of the year. This block is a bit problematic, especially given that it's in the lede. Let’s try and unpack it below.
  • Lima Locomotives started production of the vehicles in June 1943, with five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s. Currently the text says that all five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s were produced in June 1943 when production started. But the body of the article says otherwise. Consider reworking the lede for clarity.
  • The production of the M32 was started by Lima Locomotive, which converted five M32B2s in June 1943. They also intermittently produced 26 M32B3s in May 1944, followed by 20 more vehicles in the summer of 1944.--Randomness74 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This approach will probably not help you. My above comment is for the lede, not the body. It may be beneficial to you to check out Wikipedia's guildine for the lede WP:LEAD. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also produced 298 M32B3s. When? In 1944? If it's in 1944, why not list it along with the others in the preceding sentence? Without a date, that piece of information is not very useful.
  • while 398 M32B1s were produced by Federal Machine before the end of the year. What year? With the year for the last sentence being ambiguous, this sentence becomes less meaningful. Fixing the preceding sentences should automatically fix this one.
  • 〜 Pending. Is it "Lima Locomotives" or "Lima Locomotive"? You use both in the article. Or are they two strings supposed to refer to different things? EyeTruth (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 〜 Pending. Consider mentioning in the lede that the "ARV Mark III" and "Chenca" are common names for this vehicle in other armed forces? EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 〜 Pending. There were also variants that had Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension suspension. A bad redundancy? Also appears like that throughout the article but as abbreviations. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Body

  • ✗ Unresolved. These designs competed against the T2 and T7 designs at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The T5 was declared superior to the T2 and T7 designs after several weeks of testing. This excerpt is practically everything we know of these T2 and T7 designs. They appear to have been serious competitors, so consider providing some more context for them? Some introduction should be beneficial.
    • I would have added more information, but the source (Hunnicutt, Sherman) did not state any more information.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 〜 Pending. Why did Lima Locomotives discontinue production for almost a year, while Pressed Steel Car went on producing during roughly the same period? Currently the article gives the feeling of a major gap in information. See if you can plug this gap. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • 〜 Pending. Hunnicutt, R.P. (1971). Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press. ISBN 0-89141-742-7. The ISBN seems to be for a different book by Hunnicutt, Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked Vehicles. Please verify. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomness74: Hi, have you been able to look into these comments? EyeTruth (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-ordinator comment: - @Randomness74: are you in a position to action some of the outstanding cmts here relatively soon? If not we will probably need to close this review as no consensus to promote at this time. Procedure is for ACRs to remain open for 28 days, although we regularly exceed that nowdays due to the limited number of reviewers we sometimes get. This review has now been open for three and half months though. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/M32_Tank_Recovery_Vehicle&oldid=791880461"