Talk:River monitor

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Vietnam Conflict River Monitors

I keep seeing references to United States "brown water" Naval vessels in the Vietnam Conflict as monitors in Wikipedia articles. They do not fit the traditional monitor definition by my studies (or more importantly the Wikipedia article on monitors) and I have never seen them referred to as monitors in any published text. Can someone please provide a reference for this idea; otherwise I think it is misleading and ambiguous to compare the vessels. I acknowledge the similar role, but part of what distinguished a monitor were some physical characteristics that these brown water boats didn't have to the best of my knowledge.Zurel Darrillian (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly useless article

Nothing resembling charateristics, numbers built, or even what they were used for. I know off the top of my head more than this article states; That they were used ISO rivierine assaults by US Army infantry both to provide the sodliers with heavy firepower (in place of tanks, which couldn't access the islands were Veit Cong and NVA bases were located) and to land them. (Scource: Book "River Rats", collected essays from Rivine Force memebers in Viet Nam.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.188 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily armoured or not?

First line: "River monitors were heavily armored...". And from the second paragraph: "Most river monitors were lightly armoured...". I am confused. Are they armoured or armored, and heavily or lightly? I will admit that this contradiction is probably the least of a dozen problems with this article, but I have no knowledge about this topic. --Unedel (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Clive class were river monitors? I think not.

If we are going to include the Lord Clive class in the lede as an extreme example of a river monitor, why not include the Nelson-class battleships in the definition of a destroyer? After all, they both had guns and torpedo tubes. The Lord Clives were cheaply built with one main purpose, to bombard the occupied Belgian coast from its relatively shallow waters. They were never intended to carry out operations up a river or estuary.

The previous layout of the lede of the Monitor article included the Lord Clives followed by a link to this article as if they were similar, but they just aren't. Maybe someone extrapolated rather too hard. MinorProphet (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]