Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

45th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

First nomination
Second nomination

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. —Ed!(talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The initial 'Origins' paragraph does not cover the 45th Division at all, and needs to be removed; maybe broken up between the State ARNGs, but certainly doesn't belong here. Also same thing for the first four-line paragraph on the Korean War: it doesn't talk about this division. If I may be honest, this is is a bit of a weak consistent thread in your writing: you don't stick to the unit/formation you're actually writing about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, but this misses the point. This is an article on the Division; not the constituent regiments, or the State ARNGs. The history of the division begins only on 19 October 1920, after the first section. The material in the first 'origins' section simply does not belong here; it belongs in other articles. What we need here is a sketch about division level formations and maybe the expansion of the U.S. Army and the reasons why more division level formations were created. As it is this article simply replicates material that should be in the State ARNG or regimental pages. More space should be freed up to discuss the unique historical circumstances dealing with *this* level of the chain of command, at the division level, not the lower level regiments and other units. Whether you agree or disagree, is this objection clear? Have I made myself clear in what I am saying? Kind regards and congrats on all the other progress you've made with this article; I don't want to tangle my objections to the way this is at the moment with my personal regard for all the work you've done here. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also want to see an expansion of the 1953-68 section; apart from the bare facts of the ROAD reorganisation, you've actually said very little. Historical regimental continuity? Mobilisation assignments? Training exercises? OK ARNG/other state ARNG political fights? None of this is reflected here. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems trips to the archives will be required. Have you at least contacted the OK ARNG history office to check whether there are additional easily available resources? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look around and contacted them. There is nothing in terms of reliable sources on that era that I could find to add. —Ed!(talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: I've done some copyediting on this this evening. These are my comments:
    • "federally recognized" --> I wonder if this needs explaining, perhaps in a footnote?
    • is this right? "In August 1940, the 45th Infantry Division took part in the Louisiana Maneuvers, the largest peacetime exercises in U.S. military history". The Wiki article for the Louisiana Maneuvers states that it was in 1941.
      • Yeah, that was a typo on my part. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 82nd paratroopers, conducting the first combat jump of the war". Do you mean "their first combat jump"?
    • this might need to be reworded: "German forces pushed back, the division advanced, its main objective was to capture airfields at..."
    • this seems a little awkward: "forts Kaiser Wilhelm II designed" (was it one or more forts, and was it/were they named "Kaiser Wilhelm II"?)
    • inconsistent capitalisation: Active duty v. active duty
    • "antiaircraft" --> should this be "anti-aircraft"?
    • not sure about this: "Some of the victims apparently had only died hours before the 45th Division entered the camp and lay where they had died in states of decomposition that overwhelmed the soldiers' senses". (My issue is with the word "decomposition". If the victims died only hours before the unit arrived, I don't think decomposition would have started).
    • inconsistent: "U.S. " and "US";
    • I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but in places the prose seemed to lack flow and seemed more like just a collection of facts. For instance the last part of the second paragraph of the Sicily section. I've had a go at trying to fix this, but I don't think that I was wholely successful. Would you mind making a run through and seeing what you can do? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I've been having problems trying to get the level of detail right in some areas, while keeping the statistics still a prominent part of the narrative since they're the best documented details. Is there anywhere else in the article that stands out to you? —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your changes look good. Cheers. I've taken another run through and made a few more tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I have the following additional comments:
    • repetition: "On 19 October 1920, the Oklahoma State militia was organized as the 45th Infantry Division of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, and organized with troops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[11] The division was organized" (a number of "organized") - perhaps one can be reworded?
    • "After this, division was allocated to drive towards Messina, being ordered by Patton to cover the distance as quickly as possible..." and then "On 1 August, the division was withdrawn..." (Did they make it to Messina before being withdrawn?)
    • "The 40th Infantry Division of the California Army National Guard would soon be deployed to Korea as well." This seemed just tacked on, so I had a go at working it into the paragraph. I'm not sure if I was completely successful, though. Would you mind taking a look ? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as part of Secretary Robert McNamara's downsizing of the Guard"... this appears in the lead, but not in the body (specifically the mention of McNamara);
      • Reworded to cover what was cited. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the 45th Infantry Brigade which inherited the division's lineage and honors, the 45th Field Artillery Group (today's 45th Fires Brigade) and the 90th Troop Command, were activated..." this appears in the lead, but not in the body of the article (specifically the arty, troop command, etc). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has been added back in with citations, which is fine, however, I think a couple of tweaks are needed now. Firstly, the information should be added to the body of the article (currently it is just in the lead), and secondly the sentence needs to be reworked as in its current form it is very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see the following problems (all of which can be corrected):
  1. I concur with Buckshot06 - the initial paragraph does not deal with the division.
  1. Reduced the paragraph and merged it into the next one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The last paragraph of Origins needs clarification. Both the 157th and 158th regiments were never part of the 36th ID, but the wording of the paragraph leads one to believe that they were.
  1. Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those two problems, the rest of the article is great. Much better than before. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Personally, I found the first para useful context, but I tend to prefer longer context intros than some, so might well be in the minority.
  • "many of its members were adept with weapons and outdoor skills" - can you be adept with an outdoor skill? (the verb doesn't seem right to me)
    • As in, they were used to a more rugged outdoor lifestyle that made transitioning into a combat unit easier for them. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "many of its members were outdoors-men and adept with weapons"? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "designed by Carnegie, Oklahoma native, Woody Big Bow" - is Carnegie a place? (I thought it was a name the first time I read this, so might be worth playing with the text a little)
  • "was federalized into the active force" - "federalized" won't be a familiar verb to many readers. Does it mean called up/mobilised into full time service?
  • "Though the 45th remained de facto segregated in 1950" - I'm assuming it was segregated as a white unit? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Origin

Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this, though the editors above will need convincing. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I love my Thunderbirds. I'm about to offer a big expansion of the Korean War section, an actual history for the 279th, and I just came into posession of a source for Cold War to 1982, reorgs, SAD, and politics. RTO Trainer (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1950 Reorganization

Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for a source and fix this. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reference and fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Federalized

Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree an article on federalizing national guard units into federal service would be helpful. I'm personally not knowledgeable in the sources that would make a good article for this. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Federalization of the National Guard to that section. It should be used every time federalized National Guard units are mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article.RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Italian Campaign (World War II) says: "The Italian Campaign of World War II was the name of Allied operations in and around Italy, from 1943 to the end of the war in Europe." - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then that needs a citation. To the best of my knowledge, that's not true. And I can produce citations for the official list of named campaigns.RTO Trainer (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it's worded now should fix the problem. —Ed!(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the US Army divides the fighting in Italy into six campaigns: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Northern Apennines, and Po Valley. The 45th only fought in the first four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, thank you for your help. —Ed!(talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Most of the images are PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article.
      • File:Middleton.Troy.ThreeStars.jpg lacks a fair use rational for this article
    • Language here seems a little off (to me at least): "...the 45th Infantry Division accrued over 25,000 battle casualties...", perhaps consider "...the 45th Infantry Division sustained' over 25,000 battle casualties..." ("accrued" doesn't sound right, almost sounds like its a desirable statistic)(suggestion only).
    • "These militias would eventually organize into most of the National Guard units which would make up the 45th Infantry Division...", consider instead: "These militias eventually organized into most of the National Guard units which later made up the 45th Infantry Division..." (suggestion only)
    • Is there a missing word here: "...and would earn combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."? Specifically should it be: "...and would earn a combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."?
    • "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..." had they been called up previously to manage a locust plague? Perhaps you mean something like: "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up, this time to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..."?
    • Is there a missing word here: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow...", consider: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through the mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow..."
    • "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was assigned Operation Shingle, detached from the Army Group to land behind enemy lines at Anzio." When?
    • "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in its place...", or should it be: "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in place..."? (suggestion only)
    • Missing word here: "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan, V-J Day...", consider "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan on V-J Day."
    • Redundant language here: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and they suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons...", consider instead: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons..." (minor point - suggestion only)
    • Missing word here: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line replace the 1st Cavalry Division...", consider: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line to replace the 1st Cavalry Division..."
    • This could be reworded: "...individual unit commanders made great pains to integrate...", consider "...individual unit commanders went to great lengths to integrate..." (suggestion only)
    • These sentences need to linked somehow with the language you use, because their proximity implies a relationship but the way they are written doesn't make it clear: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army." This could be as simple as: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, which was an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division then defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army."
    • This is repetitive: "...but most of the division was held back to hold a defensive line against the Chinese...", perhaps consider rewording?
    • This lacks context: "The ensuing Battle of Hill Eerie was one of a series of larger attacks by Chinese and North Korean forces which produced heavier fighting than the previous year had seen." Why? I assume it was because the Chinese were looking to gain political advantage at the Armistace talks or was there another reason?
    • Overall, this article is looking good to me but there a few issues with prose that need to be cleaned up / discussed.
      • Fixed everything you noted. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also have Buckshot's concerns been fully addressed (I can see changes have been made but are they sufficient)? I'm no expert on US Army units so I'm really not qualified to say either way. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Happy with these changes; however, noting Buckshot's recent comments above I'm putting my support on hold for now as it is beyond my area of knowledge. I'll check back in a few days. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/45th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)&oldid=1217233884"