Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

untitled

It does sound a good idea to merge the earlier WW1 material about the British 2nd Division with the later material: that way you get all the material together in one place in chronological order. Also it is consistent with articles about other Divisions. Dormskirk 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, especially as unlike for some higher numbered units, the 2nd was a regular formation in both World Wars, probably never being disbanded during the entire period.--Caranorn 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be merged - if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll do it. Carom 01:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the articles please amend if I have made any mistakes in the process Dormskirk 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rating and improvements

I have just completed another assessment of this article and believe it to be a Start class article, as I believe that it does not meet B class criteria 1 and 2. As such, I feel that the article could be improved by addressing the following:

• Referencing: for a successful B class review, every paragraph or block of information (i.e. list) requires an in line citation (more if multiple sources are used, or multiple challengable assertions are made);
• Coverage: the article is very focused upon the order of battle for the divisiion, rather than the indivdual actions in which it fought. This information is great, but there needs to be a section that ties everything together and discusses what the division did in the major wars/engagements it has fought in. Currently the introduction is very long, so I would suggest maybe using that as the basis of a section called History and rewriting the intro so it is a little bit more concise.

Just a couple of ideas, if you would like more in depth feedback, please consider listing the article for peer review. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR. When you feel that the article is ready for re-assessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom). 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/20150705211343/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304013015/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/structure/2080.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/2080.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

2nd Arm Div section, prior to cuts

2nd Armoured Division, 1976-1982

The Chieftain tank, the main battle tank of the division.

The 2nd Armoured Division was the first of the four BAOR divisions to be reorganised. After the process was completed, it was 8,600 men strong, and equipped with 132 Chieftain tanks (with 12 additional tanks in reserve). In a time of war, the division would be reinforced to a wartime strength of 14,000 men. Divisional headquarters was based in Lübbecke, West Germany, and its signal regiment was in Bünde. The 2nd Armoured Division maintained the 2nd Division's insignia, original designed during the Second World War, and used throughout the Cold War. The division consisted of an armoured reconnaissance regiment (two squadrons equipped with FV101 Scorpions and a third squadron equipped with FV107 Scimitars); two armoured regiments each with 66 tanks in four squadrons and three mechanised infantry battalions, each with four rifle companies that were carried in FV432 armoured personnel carriers. The pre-reform organisation included pioneer and reconnaissance forces integrated within each infantry battalion. Now all reconnaissance forces were concentrated in the reconnaissance regiment, and all pioneers were allocated to the divisional engineer regiment.

The divisional artillery group included a close support regiment equipped with the Abbot self-propelled artillery system and Blowpipe missiles, a man-portable air-defence system; a general support regiment of self-propelled M109 howitzers; and an anti-tank battery equipped with Swingfire anti-tank missiles. Other divisional assets included a field ambulance unit, a provost company, a transport regiment, an ordnance company, field workshop battalions, and an aviation regiment of scout helicopters. The actual units that comprised the division were not fixed. The British Army rotated units through the BAOR. For example, infantry battalions would generally serve a four-year tour with the army before being rotated to another theatre; armoured units could serve up to eight years. Elements of the division could also be rotated elsewhere from Germany while remaining part of the division. For example, the 2nd Armoured Division Engineer Regiment was deployed to Northern Ireland in December 1979.

With the removal of the brigade level, the division was ideally able to form up to five battlegroups each based around the headquarters of the armoured regiments or infantry battalions. These groups were to be formed for a specific task and allocated the required forces needed. The reforms envisioned that the divisional commander would oversee these battlegroups, but early training found this to be impractical. To compensate, the divisional headquarters was increased to 750 men (war time strength) including two brigadiers, who would each command a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC. The 2nd Armoured Division's task forces were Task Force Charlie and Task Force Delta. The task forces would allow the GOC to tailor their forces to meet unforeseen events and better execute the killing area doctrine. These task forces were not a reintroduction of a brigade command structure, and they had no logistical responsibilities. Structuring the division in this manner allowed the division to be reduced by 700 men. The historian David Stone commented the system was "designed to allow the commander maximum flexibility and take precise account of the operational or tactical task to be achieved."

In November 1976, the BAOR held Exercise Spearpoint 76. It was designed to test the reorganised 2nd Armoured Division, and included troops from Denmark and the United States. Norman Dodd, a retired British Army officer who attended the exercise and reviewed what took place, wrote: "Exercise Spearpoint proved that the new structure of the corps is workable and an improvement on the old organization." He suggested the new structure may see problems "after some days in combat when fatigue and strain begin to take their toll" on the divisional headquarters and those in charge of the battlegroups. Following the exercise, further refinements to the organisation took place into 1977, as additional armour and infantry units were transferred and brought the formation up to strength. The Task Force concept lasted until the end of the decade. Stone wrote it had "not prove[d] entirely satisfactory". Isby wrote brigades were reintroduced after the flaws of the new system became apparent. It was an issue exacerbated by troop deployments to Northern Ireland that had "caused some armoured and mechanized battalions to reduce their fourth squadrons or companies to cadre status." The division then comprised the 4th and the 12th Armoured Brigades.

Further reorganisation

In 1981, John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence for the government elected in 1979, authored the 1981 Defence White Paper. It, like the Mason review, aimed at balancing the British military in line with the nation's financial resources. Nott's paper called for the BAOR to be restructured from four armoured divisions of two brigades to three divisions of three brigades, saving manpower and money with the loss of one division. Nott also called for a new division to be formed in the United Kingdom, which would be made up primarily of Territorial Army personnel. The new formation would reinforce the BAOR on the outbreak of war.

In July 1981, the 2nd Armoured Division was chosen to be the formation that would be disbanded. It was to be reformed in the United Kingdom as the 2nd Infantry Division, and assigned to reinforce the BAOR during wartime. The new division headquarters would be based at Imphal Barracks, in York. The division's assets were dispersed. For example, the 4th Armoured Brigade was transferred to the 4th Armoured Division. By December 1982, the division ceased to exist.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 05:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Can you find a way to avoid having consecutive sentences start with "The division" in the first paragraph of the lead?

  I made a couple of tweaks to the lede, I hope these work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Peninsular War

• Was the division formed from newly-raised troops or pre-existing units? If the latter, do we know which units?

  It as pre-existing forces, and I have tweaked the sentence to reflect that. We do know which units they were, but for space constraints I have tried to avoid identifying specific forces throughout the article if it was not necessary. There is a detailed order of battle article, which is linked to at the bottom. However, I could add in that information if you think it would benefit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm fine with keeping it simple per space constraints

• "Historian Charles Oman wrote that under cover of a blinding hailstorm, 800 Polish lancers had approached. The lancers charged into the British flank, inflicting 1,248 casualties, or 75 percent of the brigade's strength. Total divisional losses in the battle amounted to 2,868." - I'm a little confused as to what is being attributed to Oman. Are the losses, the hailstorm, or the Polish attack attributed to Oman?

  All of it was attributed to Oman. Re-reading that section, I have removed Oman from the beginning of the sentence. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for starting to review this article, I know its a biggy and I appreciate any and all comments :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Crimean War

• Be consistent with de Lacy Evans vs De Lacy Evans

  Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do we know losses for Inkerman?

  After a search through the Gazette, I found the casualty list for each regiment; I have tallied them up and added it into the article. It does not break it down by division (so potentially missing info on the headquarters staff), and the Royal Artillery losses are lumped together (so I cannot state what casualties the division's RA batteries suffered).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

1918

• Is it possible to give an overall 1914-1918 total of war losses by the division?

  Unfortunately, no. Wryall includes a wonderful in volume two for the last two years of the war, but fails to do the same in volume one. He does provide 16 appendices of casualties, but they are inconsistent (some include all casualties, some only include officers) and only cover the certain timeframes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Pausing here, will resume later. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• For the DeVore source, Massachusetts is not a specific enough publication location. I think MIT is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so go with the city. Just saying Massachusetts is kinda like just giving Devonshire as a publishing location

I'm actually ready to pass it at this point. I'd have some additional comments for an ACR or FAC, but I think this one meets the GA criteria as is. Well sourced, sources are relaible, image licensing looks good, prose appears to be decently-written and accurate, etc. I'm less strict on prose than many, so expect to likely get plenty of prose comments from others at higher levels. Hog Farm _Talk 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Article scope?

I'm slightly puzzled by the scope of this article. The pre-Boer War "2nd Infantry Divisions" seem to be entirely different military units who had the same name. Per WP:DICTIONARY we don't do articles on terms. Is there a MILHIST guideline that suggests different military units of the same name get covered by the one article? DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

On the whole, I would agree with you: that one article would not cover every formation that bore the same name if there were no direct link between them. Wyrall, cited in the article, states that certain formations were one and the same (see the opening of the Victorian Era section for the flashed-out part). If memory has not faded, the primary reason I ended up expanding this article was because of the reason you cited. I had worked on the 2nd Armoured Division article, which included the information from this article's 2nd Armoured Division, 1976–1982 section, and reviewers highlighted that despite the same name they were different formations and to place it in this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)