Template:Did you know nominations/A.P. Mine No. 3
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
A.P. Mine No. 3
- ... that the A.P. No. 3 landmine was developed in British India for use the the Burma campaign of the Second World War? "this mine was developed and produced by the Royal Engineers in India." from: British Explosive Ordnance (PDF). Washington DC: US Department of the Navy. 10 June 1946. p. 413.; Burma campaign comes from Roy (quoted below) who describes teh mines in the Burma campaign section of his book.
- ALT1:... that A.P. No. 3 landmine was designed to be simple, so that infantrymen could lay them without sapper support? "the India Command had small stocks of Hong Kong Pineapple Mines. But these were complicated weapons and could be handled only by the sappers and not by the infantry. Hence, the Anti-Personnel Mine No. 3 was put into production. Every infantry battalion was given 72 such mines." from: Roy, Kaushik (2016). Sepoys against the Rising Sun: The Indian Army in Far East and South-East Asia, 1941–45. BRILL. p. 240. ISBN 978-90-04-30678-3.
- ALT2 ... that the A.P. No. 3 landmine could be neutralised with a "safety spider"?"Assembly and arming: ... remove the wing nut and safety spider ... Neutralization: reverse the process outlined for arming the mine" from: British Explosive Ordnance (PDF). Washington DC: US Department of the Navy. 10 June 1946. p. 413..
- Reviewed: to follow
- Comment: Expanded from a one sentence sub-stub that was tagged for notability. There's a PD cross-section image but probably not much good at this scale.
5x expanded by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 12:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC).
Size and date check out. Proper grammar and spelling, just enough references, hook facts interesting and referenced. ALT2 is best (is there any way to explain what the 'safety spider' is beyond a safing device?). Earwig and spot checks indicate CPR/copyvio not a concern. Needs QPQ @Dumelow: and then will be good to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review The Bushranger, I've carried out a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Benedict Joseph Fenwick. I've tried to clarify how the spider works in the article, hopefully it makes sense! - Dumelow (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Should be good to go! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review The Bushranger, I've carried out a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Benedict Joseph Fenwick. I've tried to clarify how the spider works in the article, hopefully it makes sense! - Dumelow (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
