Talk:Armoured fighting vehicles of the Irish Army

MILHIST Initial Assessment

Should proceed to start OK when missing sections are added. Monstrelet (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armoured fighting vehicles of the Irish Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711033839/http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/scorpion/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/scorpion/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711033839/http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/scorpion/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/scorpion/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armoured fighting vehicles of the Irish Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414020440/http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/aml20/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/aml20/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cromwell Tanks?

I note over on the Cromwell tank page that Eire is listed as having used this tank. The supporting reference is an offline book so I can't check its accuracy - but does anyone know if this is true? Obviously I need not point out the irony of the Irish army using Cromwell tanks! FOARP (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am personally unaware of "Eire" (or indeed Ireland) ever having Cromwell tanks of any variant. Certainly they are not listed in any of the three books used as references in this article. Each of those books ("Irish Army Orders of Battle 1923-2004", "Irish Army Vehicles - transport and armour since 1922", etc) list other equipment types. Including those purchased from the UK - like the Comet. And including those of which there were only one or two examples - like the L60 or Vickers Mk D. They don't make mention of even one Cromwell. To my understanding, at the lowest point (mid-1940s) there were only 2 "tanks" in operation (both L60s - and used entirely for infantry anti-tank training). And, at the highest point (late 1950s) there were 8 Comets, 4 Churchills and 8 Beaverettes in the Curragh with 1 Tank Squadron. Unless perhaps a Cromwell was used for training or evaluation (prior to the purchase of the Comets), or someone has confused the Cromwell with the Comet, I'd suspect the statement in that article is a misnomer. I'd note that Ireland is not listed in the "operators" list of that article(?) Guliolopez (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sceptical that it had been used and was probably a reference to a Comet, but the historical irony of it kinda made me want it to be true. Without access to the reference, and given that it is not mentioned in the detailed references you consulted, I think we're just going to have to leave things as-is. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Agreed. I'd just leave it too. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comet Tank

About an hour after contributing to the section "Comet Tank", it was reverted with the following summary:

Summarise out-dated speculation. (In 1975, nothing happened...

Let's break that down:

out-dated

In what sense? It was a very current article in 1975, written by an Irish Army officer and published in the official magazine of the Irish Defence Force, pertaining to the future of the Irish tank force and the fate of the Comet tanks that had recently been relegated to storage.

speculation

E. Horgan was making a suggestion, which is distinct from speculation.

nothing happened

Yes, the proposal came to nought. That was noted in the text.

There's two issues here; the manner in which the information was removed and the rationale behind it. I hardly need to cite another Wikipedia page on the development and service of an armoured vehicle where an upgrade or revamp was planned, proposed, or discussed and it was considered useful information worth adding to the page. The justification for the deletion was unclear, at best. I'm trying to accept the reversion in good faith but generally when an editor opts to make such a dramatic edit it would be vastly preferable to come to a consensus in Talk page first.

Guliolopez (talk)

--NelsonEdit2 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. And thanks for your note.

• RE: "reverted". Your edit was not "reverted". I summarised the text that was added. To remove some of the detail in the speculation by the unnamed author of the opinion piece. That is all.
• RE: "summary"/"rationale". Yes, my edit summary could have been clearer. Acknowledged.
• RE: "[other articles mention] an upgrade or revamp was planned, proposed, or discussed". Notwithstanding WP:OSE, where other similar articles discuss planned or proposed changes (like Irish_Air_Corps#Future or Irish_Naval_Service#Acquisitions_and_future), it is typically on the basis of commissioned white papers (by governments or armies or departments of defence) or similar material research. Not a few lines in a short article, representing the thoughts or one person, from a limited-distribution magazine.
• RE: "such a dramatic edit". I'm not sure if you're just using hyperbole for effect here, but shortening a 75-word paragraph to a 45-word paragraph (to avoid unnecessary detail about what "would" or "could" have happened in 1975) is not a "dramatic edit".
• RE: "a suggestion is not speculation". Again, I'm not sure of the focus on semantics here, but the relevant parts of the 1975 An Cosantóir opinion piece/article are speculative. Firstly the author sets out a speculative/hypothetical: "We are [..] likely to be involved in any future European War [..] If nuclear weapons are used, the role of tanks will be even more important". The entire basis for the author's (subsequent) argument is therefore based on a speculative premise. That Ireland WILL be involved in any future European War, that nuclear weapons MAY be involved, and that (in such a scenario) Ireland WILL need [full] battle tanks. In building on this speculative premise, the author then makes a speculative suggestion. (A possible solution to a theoretical problem). "If this [new battle] tank could be fitted with a new engine and upgunned [..] it would provide an effective training tank [..] This would fill the gap, which now exists, until a better tank can be procured". (Emphasis mine.) In this later part, building entirely on his earlier speculative premise, the author makes a hypothetical proposal. I personally don't see how the entire thing is not speculative (as it is a proposed solution to a speculated problem).

In any event, if you want to make an argument for why the 30 words I summarised (about the speculative and unactioned suggestion, by one person, that Centurion tanks be purchased) have specific value to the reader, then please do make that argument.

Otherwise, and with apologies again for not explaining myself more completely in my edit summary, I don't see what value is added by such outdated (in the sense that it wasn't actioned) speculation (in the sense that it was based on the presumption of impending nuclear war in Europe).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

My post last night was ill-informed and honestly upon re-read fairly silly. I, owing to both tiredness and maybe the influence of alcohol somehow misconstrued your edit as removing my addition to the page entirely rather than just refining it. So yeah keep doing what you do and sorry for wasting your time.

Sincerest apologies,

--NelsonEdit2 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Grand job. Not a bother. No harm, no foul. Guliolopez (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)