Talk:1st Armoured Regiment (Australia)

message: It should also be noted that the 1st Armoured Regiment is the only "Cavalry" regiment in the Australian army that is issued a standard rather than a guidon. User:66.147.168.5 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidion vs Standard

message: There are numerous errors/inaccuracies in this article. The main one is that 1st Armoured Regiment cannot claim lineage to the New South Wales Lancers as they are an existing unit of the Army Reserve based in Sydney with an older and completely separate history to 1st Armoured Regiment, who were formed after the Second World War. Whomever updated this article earlier should also not be claiming that 1st Armoured Regiment served in the South West Pacific either as again this was service by the 1st Armoured Regiment (Royal New South Wales Lancers).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBinSydney (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its true that the lineage of this unit is complicated, and I thought that this was made clear in the article (so I would suggest reading the article as a whole and then making such an assessment). That said the linage of the unit back to the Light Horse is fully referenced to the AWM which is a source of considerable standing. I think the issue really relates to 1949 when the regular army unit was formed, and the old militia unit by the same name was renamed. Of course I am open to suggestions as to how this might be dealt with differently however. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For instance should the WW2 history etc be hived off into the article on the 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers, and a paragraph be added to the remainder of the old article to explain its reformation in 1949 etc? This might have some merit IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I have re-written the article a little to further clarify the the lineage of the (two) units. I have removed the WW2 battle honours from the article now as it is true that they were perpetuated by 1RNSWL and their inclusion probably added to the confusion. What does everyone else think about these changes? Is more required? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a difficult one to resolve because the lineage is so confusing. A lot of Australian Army units have similar complicated lineages. I think that the best way to deal with this is to hive off the Second World War information to the 1 RNSWL article, with a brief mention in this article about the similar names. Of course, this might create more work for you at a time when you don't have much time. As a side note, Army lineage is quite complicated and from my understanding it is possible for two units to have shared lineage even though they had parallel existence (for example the Citizen Forces units that existed in 1918–21 alongside returned AIF units, whose battle honours and designations they eventually adopted in 1921, while still maintaining their own lineage but also perpetuating that of the AIF). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no references at all in this article about lineage to the New South Wales Lancers or 1st Armoured Regiment (AIF) so please remove any reference to WW2 or 1/15 RNSWL. There is a clear link from the pre-war 1st MG Regiment (RNSWL) to 1st Motor Regiment (AIF) then 1st Army Tank Battalion to 1st Armoured Regiment (RNSWL) from the mid 1930s to the end of WW2. You need examine the history of 1/15 RNSWL to see this. Phil Vernon's regimental history written in the 1980s is a good reference. As a ex-member of 1/15 I spoke to many WW2 veterans from 1st Armoured Regiment (RNSWL) about their wartime exploits and can confirm that they were always RNSWL and not '1st Armoured'. For example in 1945 they celebrated the 50th Birthday of the RNSWL with a parade in Brisbane attended by the Premier. It is really dangerous for different units to claim lineage to the same predecessors when one has clear lineage and the other does not.DBinSydney (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the input of someone with a close association to the topic such as yourself DBinSydney, however I think you have oversimplified things a little. The unit was indeed renamed 1st Armoured Regiment during WW2 despite what might be claimed by the blokes you spoke to, as the reference from Hopkins clearly demonstrates (a fairly unimpeachable source on the RAAC). It was only during the post war reorganisation that it became 1st Armoured Regiment (Royal New South Wales Lancers). The issue then of how to deal with two units with an identical name arises. Do we deal with the WW2 unit by including its history in the 1RNSWL article (or even in the 1/15RNSWL article as the successor unit of the successor unit)? That in itself is problematic, as indeed where do we draw the line? Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok I have rewritten it now to pretty much expunge any suggestion of a link between the two units. I intend to move the removed material to 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers but this may take a while. Anotherclown (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: FYI I have finally rewritten 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers now to incorporate the removed information. If anyone is interested please have a look and let me know what you think. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in this article 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.army.gov.au/1ARMD/History.htm
** In 1st Armoured Regiment (Australia) on 2011-05-25 06:51:35, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Armoured Regiment (Australia) on 2011-06-09 12:52:05, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The intent of this bit was to make it clear that 1 AR was the only manoeuvre unit in the Army that operated tanks during this period, although I ack that the School of Armour also operates them for training (this seemed like a given but I agree it could be clarified). The fact of 1 AR being the only tank unit is mentioned in a few sources (Hopkins and Toal) so I feel it is material. As such I've reworded this now and added a note for some context. Hopefully this is clearer now. If it needs further changes I'm happy to discuss. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only tank unit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 1st Armoured Regiment (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2013Summer/AAJ_Summer2013_The%20Combined%20Arms%20Imperative.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified