Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2nd Infantry Division was a British Army formation that had an on and off again existence for around 200-years. It fought during the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Boer War, and both World Wars. It fought in numerous famous battles, including playing a vital role in the rout of the Imperial Guard at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. Due to it being a forefront in most of the campaigns it fought in, it also suffered heavy losses. In peace time, during the second half of the 20th Century and into the 21st, it went under various role changes: it became an armoured formation, reverted back to an infantry division, and became a training unit. The article has been worked over by the GOCE, although any suggestions for cuts and and wording improvements are always welcome, and it has just passed its GA-review. If you have somehow missed them, there are three sub-articles (unsure if they needed to be in their own sections, or if they right at home in the "see also" section) that supplements this article, with detailed orders of battle, the list of commanding officers, and all Victoria Cross winners.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Sorry to see this unreviewed for so long. Great subject for an article, not sure if it should have such a wide scope or whether it should be a series of articles, but will let you know that at the end. I'll be doing this in several tranches, I expect. My comments are below:

Lead

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic Wars

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian era and Reform period

Down to First World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First World War
  • "first Victoria Cross of the war" I am wondering if it is worth naming each one (without information about how it was won, people can click the link for that)?
    Per above discussionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention at the appropriate point that 1st Army Corps was renamed I Corps, as you start talking about II Corps. Maybe state what the overall structure of the BEF was at the beginning of the war?
    Left this huge gap here for me to spot the one I haven't done - will address this later.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed break: I have added in some info in the reform section about Aldershot Command and it forming the basis for I Corps. I have also added a note with the BEF order of battle, for when the article discusses the division moving to France. I reviewed the primary source consulted for the Boer War, and it does not appear to explain what happened to the First Army Corps. I would guess that it too was disbanded, along with the divisions, once its purpose was furfilled.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 1916, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Second World War, more to follow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion on your talkpage, I have added in some detail about this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each based around the headquarters of either an armoured regiment or infantry battalion"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The task force approach allowed the GOC to tailor their forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • assuming this is a grammatical error, suggest "designed to allow the commander maximum flexibility and [to] take precise account of the operational or tactical task to be achieved"
    I double checked the source, and it is verbatim. I have added in the above suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the loss of one divisional headquarters" as there really wasn't a loss of a division in strength, per se
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Army restructured theirits forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in See Also, "British Army Structure Iin 2010"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • you could add |ref=none to the Further reading and External links sources to inhibit anchor ID creation that some scripts highlight

That's me done, finally. In conclusion, I think you have it right in terms of scope, the iterations of the division seem to be interrelated, although the WWII 2nd Armd Div is an outlier, and some sort of hatnote is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting for A-Class, the outstanding comments will need addressing to get me over the line at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

edit

I don't have expertise across the whole of the scope of the article, so I'm going to confine myself to the 20th century.

First World War
  • Reform period: the point here is that the division organisation was changed from two to three brigades, so the number of divisions (which existed mainly on paper anyway) dropped from nine to six.
    I have added in that particularEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consistency as to whether imperial or metric is used first. Suggest MOS:METRIC for guidance.
    I have gone through the various convert templates, and they should be consistent now: miles to km, and other imperial to metric units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This resulted in the division's first casualties and first Victoria Cross of the war." How many did it win?
    18, which is now mentioned in that lineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link trench raiding
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1918, the number of front line infantry within the British Army in France had decreased because of casualties and a lack of eligible replacements, leading to a manpower crisis." There was a manpower crisis, but that's not entirely true. Cabinet withheld reinforcements so they would not be used in another futile offensive. Also: "replacements" is an American term; in the British Army they are "reinforcements".
    I have replaced "replacements" with "reinforcements". As for the point about the withholding of reinforcements. I have taken a quick glance over the literature, and it seems the cabinet withholding troops is a bit of a contentious issue. Perry, for example, notes that the Army Council had notified the cabinet in early Feb '17 that a manpower crisis would arise if heavy fighting continued regardless of what steps were taken. It seems the claim that the manpower crisis was the result of George, did not appear until May '18. Perry seems to suggest that the need to reduce from 12 to 9 battalions came from the cabinet, who had concluded in late '17 that the army was going to be short half a million men and industry close the same in the long term. Perry argued that the cabinet committee (which was headed by George) looked at the various ways to get the army the men they needed before proclaiming the battalion reduction and suggesting limited offensive action in '18. Not sure who the following chap is, but he argues along similar lines and suggests it is not strightforward etc: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639350 EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the send paragraph of 1918 after fn 137.
    Para splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 2nd division, this change took place in February when three battalions were disbanded." Capital D. Any idea what three battalions were disbanded? There was a prohibition on disbanding regular or first line territorial units.
    I have added a note in to state what the three battalions were. They were all service/new army battalions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "On 26 May, with the BEF completely surrounded" Not completely surrounded.
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fighting on that day provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties in a single battalion within the BEF." What was the battalion?
    Battalion mentionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in May, the convoy was ordered to sail for British India because of increasing civil tension there." Link Quit India Movement
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the logistical issues at the time, the division could not be employed in Burma. Instead, the division formed part of the British strategic reserve in Asia. It spent 1942 through 1944 training at its Ahmednagar base." That's not quite true; two battalions participated in the Arakan Campaign 1942–43 debacle
    Per Joslen, the 6th Infantry Brigade was detached from the division for this campaign. I have, however, made mention of this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the First Battle of El Alamein, in July 1942 in the Western Desert, the division was offered as a reinforcement to ensure Axis forces did not enter the Middle East, but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein." This sentence and the next are out of chronological order. Move them after "British strategic reserve in Asia".
    MovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, developments around the theater resulted in continued postponements of this operation." That's only partially true; the landing ships were recalled to participate in the Battle of Anzio. Also: "theatre" is misspelt.
    Corrected the typo. I have been able to access Kirky, again for the time being, and have reworded this part although I have not invoked Anzio as Kirby fails to mention that as a specific reason. For example, he writes at several points that shipping availability had always been an issue for India, and suggests that Anakim just kept getting put on the back burner.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. cf Ehrman V, pp 214-223. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In conjunction with the 33rd Indian Infantry Brigade" I would say the 7th Indian Infantry Division here.
  • AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the Japanese positions cleared, the division was transported to Calcutta, so it could be used in Operation Dracula—an amphibious assault on Rangoon. However, the city was liberated by other forces and the 2nd Division did not depart for the port." That's not entirely true. The division was withdrawn from Burma to reduce the supply burden.
    I have managed to get a hold of the Burma OH, and have been able to reference thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was assigned next to Operation Zipper, a planned amphibious landing in Malaya that aimed to liberate Singapore." The division was not on the Operation Zipper troop list.
    Having got access to Kirby, I see that they are not mentioned on the initial landing list. I wonder if the author was loosely referencing a follow-up role (Appendix 5)? I have reworded based off Kirby.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division ended the war based at Poona, India" Delete "India"; Poona has already been mentioned.
    ActionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war
  • "The overall aim was to have "fewer formation headquarters overall, and fewer but larger units" That's politician spin. The UK had agreed to maintain a certain number of divisions in Germany, and when the Germans baulked at cutting the numbers, they decided to reduce the size instead.
    Granted that it is political spin, it is a direct quote from the report. I have tried to balance that up with follow-up from historians discussing it. I have done some searches, but I have not been able to find anything about a German reaction to cuts in the 70s. Do you have any leads? I did see some info out there about, what would appear to be, a continued German annoyance at the BAOR shrinking over the previous decades; but nothing, so far, about the reaction to or the run-up to the Mason Review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These task forces were not a reintroduction of a brigade command structure, and they had no logistical responsibilities." Neither did the brigades.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will review this, probably over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that PM and Hawkeye have made lengthy reviews, ping me after those are mostly completed and then I'll review; I don't want to accidentally work on cross purposes with them. Hog Farm Talk 23:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The division fought at the Battle of Waterloo and played an important role in defeating the final French attack of the day, it then marched into France becoming part of the Army of Occupation and was the only British force allowed to march through the French capital of Paris" - either split at the comma or use a semicolon instead
    Sentence splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1856, after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood down" - recommend linking stood down, as its a bit jargony
    Relevant link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thus leaving the vulnerable" - something is off here
    Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The restructure increased the BAOR to four divisions," - what had it been previously? Wasn't it previously intended to have been four divisions?
    It would seem, based off Isby, that the commitment to maintain four divisions lasted about 4–5 years: "The four-division (three armor, one infantry), post-Korea BAOR was reduced after 1957. Into the mid 1960s Britain's three divisions...". I have noted this in the area you highlightedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That note at the end of the End of the Cold War and into the 21st century section seems to be (at least on my screen) adding extra space to the end of that section, is there a way to remove this
    I have removed the extra spaces, hopefully this should allow it do display more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the key insignia kept until 2012, or did its use end earlier? It's not clear from the article
    I have made some alterations to hopefully clear that up, the answer being yes it was kept.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look fine

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

@EnigmaMcmxc: The range and quality of the sources here attest to this article being a labour of love, and are most impressive. I have only minor comments:

  • As noted by other editors above, the sources all appear reliable
  • Only minor tweaks resulting from spot checks
    • Ref 178 (Kirby et al. 1962, pp. 10, 66, 117): Checks out, and makes good use of the source
    • Ref 188 (Kirby et al. 1969, pp. 65, 81, 86): Ditto, but I've tweaked this to one reference per sentence to be more modular to help with future editing
    • Ref 201 (Taylor 2010, pp. 6–7): Checks out, but doesn't say that Mason "authored" this review - it would be highly unusual for a minister to actually personally write something like this (that's what their department is for)
    • Ref 205 (Dodd 1977, p. 373.): Checks out, but the page numbers should be pp. 373-374 to cover this material
  • None of the spot checks revealed any problems with close paraphrasing
  • Connnors, Brendan P (1965). A Short illustrated history of the Second Division 1809–1965 in the further reading section is missing publisher details
  • It looks like some, if not all, volumes of South Africa and the Transvaal War are available on Project Gutenburg, and could be linked.
  • Ditto A History of the Peninsular War
  • The War in France and Flanders 1939–1940 is also online here and should be linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1040889237"