Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The image of the Australian light horseman is probably one of the most iconic representations of Australia's involvement in the First World War. This article is about one of about fifteen or so regiments raised as part of the Australian Imperial Force during the war. It saw service at Gallipoli, where it was used mainly to provide reinforcements, and then later fought during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Disbanded after the conclusion of hostilities, it was re-raised as a part-time unit in the Citizens Forces. It remained a horsed regiment throughout the inter-war years but during World War II was converted into a motor regiment and then later an armoured car unit, being used in a garrison role only. It is currently perpetuated by the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers. The article underwent a GA nomination several years back and has been tweaked a bit since then. Thank you to all who take the time to review and offer comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support
  • First of all, and I know you hear this every Anzac day, but light horse were not mounted infantry. Mounted infantry were infantry that rode to the battle on horseback, dismounted and fought as infantry. From the Australian Light Horse article, which gets it right:

Light horse were like mounted infantry in that they usually fought dismounted, using their horses as transport to the battlefield and as a means of swift disengagement when retreating or retiring... However, unlike mounted infantry, the light horse also performed certain cavalry roles, such as scouting and screening, while mounted.

Contrary to your article, the light horse were trained for some cavalry actions, but they were just not intended to fight as cavalry on the battlefield
Mounted infantry were organised as infantry, in platoons and companies, but light horse were organised along cavalry lines, in troops, squadrons and regiments. Note how much smaller light horse regiments were than infantry battalions
G'day, I've had a go at addressing this. Would you mind taking a look and seeing it needs further adjustment? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead should mention the the 12th Light Horse was raised in New South Wales.
  • Galloping Jack Royston could be red linked, as he was a general, but it's up to you
  • The 12th Light Horse was reformed because it was intended to become the mounted regiment of the newly-formed 5th Division; but the TO was changed so each division had only one squadron.
  • Nothing in Gullet while Bou 2010 Light Horse: Au History of Australia's Mounted Arm pp. 150-151 skirts around the issue and provides some context to the period but doesn't mention this specifically. There is something in here [2] on p. 67 which is pretty close though. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were later put down, according to Hollis, because of "cost constraints and quarantine restrictions" and concerns they might be mistreated if left behind. No, that is not correct. The horses were sold to the British Indian Army; many went on to other wars in India. Only horses in too poor a condition to be sold were put down.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the emphasis on MI in the lead was really due to my edit [3], as describing the 12th Light Horse Regiment "as a light horse regiment" seemed a little redundant to me that's all. Certainly they did fill a number of roles somewhere b/n mounted infantry and cavalry (which I wouldn't think would be a correct description either) so I wonder how we describe them to the reader in two words if mounted infantry is not correct (I'd note Kuring at least calls them exactly that and I'd imagine so do quite a few other sources). Anyway happy to self-revert if I've buggered it up. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I just went with a generic "...was a regiment of the Australian Army". It might be a bit dry, but maybe less confusing. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about describing them as a "mounted unit", its seem to be a bit more descriptive of what they were rather than just saying a "regiment was a regiment". Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to mounted unit. @Hawkeye7:, does this work for you? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)


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.