Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of British divisions in World War II

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 by Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British divisions in World War II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another a list up for A-Class review. This one has been extensively reworked over the last couple of months to make user-friendly and to cite to RS. It includes a background section outlining the number of divisions the British intended to raise, and then sections with lists for the airborne, armoured, anti-aircraft, cavalry, county, and infantry divisions. Each section includes a blurb outlining the intended strength, role, and a small bit about how these formations were intended to be used. The article has recently been worked on by the GoCE. I look forward to your comments to help and improve this list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Licensing is OK (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top sidebar should be replaced either with an image or a better sidebar—something specifically related to British Army divisions or British Army in World War II, not "British Army lists". The current one fails pretty much every criterion in WP:SIDEBAR and does not really provide useful links to related articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have removed it per your recommendation, and replaced it with a photo (I had hoped to find a decent photo of an entire division on parade etc. to demonstrate the size, but was unable to do. Likewise, after scouring for photos of divisional staff, I landed on the current one after much failure. totally open to suggestions for more suitable pics). I have moved several of the relevant links to the "see also" section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D This is a great article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "These were not comparable in role, to formations that were intended to be deployed for combat such as infantry divisions" - it's not clear what this is referring to (the AA divisions?)
    I have tweaked that opened to state anti-aircraft division, hopefully this works but I am open to suggestions to better convey this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Background' section should note that quite a few British divisions were either destroyed in combat or disbanded due to casualties
    I have added in a few extra lines to state notable destroyed divisions, and the loss of four other to reinforce depleted formations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should also explain why the Indian and Sudanese formations are in-scope, but the Indian and various Dominion/Commonwealth formations aren't (e.g. that they formed part of separate armies)
    I have made a tweak to the way several of the sentences are worded, to specify the British Army raising regiments, and the other armies raising formations. Do the changes work? If not, do you have something more specific in mind to get this across?
  • Saying that the 79th Armoured Division "Did not see combat as a division" seems a bit confusing given it was never intended to, but its constituent units were heavily engaged.
    I guess I over simplified. I have amended the wording in the list, and I have also tweaked a sentence further up where the division was mentioned too. Does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest noting in the 'Infantry' section the types of attachments which were standard late war - for instance, I think that each of the divisions in North-West Europe had an armoured or tank brigade attached.
    I have thrown on an extra para to the end of the section to mention the mixed division, the corps level brigades that could be attached, and the specialized tanks. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that a 'light' establishment was adopted for the infantry divisions in Burma late in the war?
    Burma is not my forte. Perry stated that at least one Indian division was reduced to two brigades as part of the effort to implement a "light division" concept in Burma. Joslen doesnt note anything special happening to the 2nd Inf when it was deployed to India and Burma (it did reduce to two brigades for a couple of months), and the 36th Inf div (on paper) looks like all the others. I note that the 81st and 82nd Divs were initially organized with brigade groups, which were then reorganized into regular brigades in Sept '44, and Joslen notes that the divisions were "reorganized on standard division establishment" in October 1944. He does not elaborate on what that means. The same note is there for the 11th in Aug '44, but their brigade info shows regular brigades and not brigade groups. The brigade section of his work does not elaborate on the changes either. I will see if there is anything else I can dig up with the limited sources I have on the subject.
    I think that there may have been a British equivalent of the Jungle division where infantry divisions in the theatre were slimmed down, but not as drastically as the Australian divisions were. I've never been able to find a source with the details though, so no need to cover this unless you find a source. The lightened organisation may have been unofficial. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not, there is potentially an answer in Kirby's The War Against Japan: The Reconquest of Burma. I dont have access to it, but was able to do some searching via Google snippet view, and on p.25 Kirby notes there was five different types of infantry division in theatre including the Indian 'light' division. I was not able to access more than that. I believe Keith-264 has access to this source, and I enquired with him about this. But I am not sure if he will be able to look, or get back to me about it. The sources I do have, do not appear to discuss the different establishments used in Asia. For example, Perry touches on the Indian divisions being over mechanized and slimming down and I feel like that will be a summary of what Kirby may have to say on the matter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a copy too. Let me know what you want to know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you dont mind, that would be very helpful. I asked Keith, but didn't receive a response.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based off the quote Hawkeye provided below, I don't believe Kirby can be used to support the 2nd and 36th being 'Jungle Divisions' (although it somewhat implies they should be since they were under that command structure?). Joslen doesnt provide hints to supporting it, such as indicating if a field regiment was equipped with 25-pounders or mountain guns etc. There is a couple of nice photos of the 2nd Div bouncing around Burma in their universal carriers if that helps? I have not lucked out in trying to find other sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The field regiments were equipped with the 25-pounder, and the mountain regiments with the 3.7-inch howitzer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen indicates just a handful of British mountain gun regiments, none of which are with the 2nd or 36th. Two were with the 52nd, before being redeployed to Army Group Royal Artillery units (where it seems the other few were located). That doesn't exclude the possibility of British Indian units, he doesn't really detail them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note where the 1st and 2nd African Divisions were recruited from
  • Ditto the 81st and 82nd Divisions Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the additional information on the various African divisions, and have also added some additional info in the background area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and comments, I have attempted to address the majority of them and will come back to work on the remaining soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an additional comment (and one I meant to note originally - sorry), the tables aren't sorting for me despite having the sortable fields. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the culprit being an extra character, I have removed it and made the tables funtional.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for the delay in following up here. I've reviewed the above, and I think that my comments are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 I don't usually review lists, but this one is interesting and well done. Suggestions:

  • Consider adding the division insignia
  • Consider a separate column for disbanding to match forming
  • The locations and campaigns don't need to be sortable columns.
    I had a little time, so I have updated the first two sections with the above three comments in mind. I'll get around to the rest later today, hopefully. But, in case you pop in before then, you now have a preview.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have enacted these suggested changes for the entire article nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chappell isn't used.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armoured divisions. I would also note that the armoured reconnaissance regiment was organised as an armoured battalion, albeit with Cromwell tanks instead of Shermans, so each armoured division in NW Europe had four armoured and four infantry battalions, permitting the pairing described. In Italy, each armoured division was given a second infantry brigade.
    The Italian campaign is another area were I am not familiar. Where the second infantry brigades corp assets attached to the divisions? Joslen only seems to indicate one infantry brigade at a time for the 1st and 6th. I do have the official history for the Italian campaign, so I can dig through that to see if there is additional info that Joslen doesnt provide.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The official history gives orbats for both armoured divisions. The two brigades in the 1st Armoured Division were the 18th Lorried Infantry Brigade and the 43rd Gurkha Lorried Infantry Brigade (attached); in the 6th Armoured Division they were the 61st Infantry Brigade (attached) and the 1st Guards Brigade. It was the theatre-wide organisation. This was carried through with the other armoured divisions as well; in the 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division the 12th Canadian Infantry Brigade was raised from corps and division assets, and in the 6th South African Armoured Division the 24th Guards Brigade was attached until the 13th South African Motorised Infantry Brigade arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated this section, although I have tried to be careful with the wording based off the difference between how the OH and Joslen seem to look at the situation. Joslen notes that the 1st Guards Brigade was not a permanent formation within the 6th Arm after the 61st joined, although they did spend considerable amounts of time with them, as they hoped back and forth to other divs. He doesnt cover Indian Army units, and the OH seems to imply both brigades were full-time units as you noted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airborne divisions. The airborne battalions were largely made up of volunteers, whereas the airlanding battalions came from existing infantry units that had been converted into this new role. That's sort of true. The parachute battalions were made up of volunteers, and the airlanding units were not. However, only the first four parachute battalions were formed from individual volunteers like the commandos and the SAS. Starting with the 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion, parachute battalions were formed from infantry battalions converted to the new role. Those who didn't volunteer or were deemed unsuitable for parachute duties were transferred to other units and replaced by volunteers from other regiments.
    I have updated this, and hopefully the new wording is more accurate.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have actioned the above list for the various entries.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, comments, and offer of research assistance. I have left a couple of comments above, and will try to implement the suggested changes later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With access to the Burma Campaign OHs, are you able to tell if Nick's comment can be addressed via Kirby p.25? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit you're looking for reads:

    By the end of May, at a conference between senior officers representing GHQ India, 11th Army Group, Fourteenth Army and IV, XV and XXXIII Corps, an organisation for a standard infantry division capable of jungle fighting, of being transported by air and of undertaking amphibious operations was drawn up. Such a division was to consist of three divisions of three battalions each (to be increased to four as units became available), a reconnaissance battalion, a division headquarters and a machine gun battalion. The artillery was to consist of two field regiments, one mountain regiment and one anti-tank regiment. The scale of mechanical transport was to be reduced throughout the division and, in addition to first line mules (which remained as in the existing A & MT division), animal transport companies were to be provided on a scale of three for each division. The infantry battalion was to be simplified. The Bren carrier platoon was to be abolished and replaced by a battalion headquarters platoon organised as an infantry platoon. The strength of the rifle section was to be increased. The allotment of weapons was revised and limited to four 2-inch and six 3-inch mortars, the light machine gun, the Sten gun, the rifle and bayonet and, as stocks became available, the new rifle grenade in replacement of the the anti-tank rifle and the PIAT. The transport was reduced to twelve jeeps and trailers, forty-one unit mules and fifty-four first line RIASC mules.

    — Kirby, pp. 25-26
  • Support Great job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work as always. I just have a few nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was a self-contained formation that contained all the required" --> " It was a self-contained formation that possessed all the required"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "12 anti-aircraft" --> move the link here to the first paragraph
    Link movedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "one cavalry" --> same as above
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British Army was split into two branches": probably best to say when this was the case
    I have noted that we are referring to the interwar period at the beginning of that section. Does this address the issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1940, following the Battle of France, the United Kingdom prepared for potential Axis invasion" --> "In 1940, following the Battle of France, the United Kingdom prepared for a potential Axis invasion"
    Updated per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against Nazi Germany and to be deployed to France" --> "against Nazi Germany and to be deployed to France
    I have made a different change here, does this change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which intended to reduce the overall number of formations, save manpower" --> "which were intended to reduce the overall number of formations, save manpower"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Imperial War Museum stated that the division worn" -- something is a bit off with the grammar here
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Imperial War Museum wrote that it is not known what insignia this division worn" -- same as above
    Tweaked, is this better?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "118—119, 419—421, 432—434" --> should be endashes rather than emdashes
  • "423—424": same as above
  • "433—434": same as above
  • "421—422": same as above
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany launched a massive attack upon the Soviet Union" --> "Germany launched a large-scale attack upon the Soviet Union" or "Germany attacked the Soviet Union"?
    Opted for the latterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heraldry in War: Formation Badges, 1939-1945": endash
  • "British and Commonwealth Armoured Formations (1919-46)": endash
  • "Clear the Way!: A History of the 38th (Irish) Brigade, 1941-1947": endash
  • "Companion to the British Army 1939-1945": endash
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some works have secondary locations and some don't. While I agree London doesn't need one, Ukfield probably does
    Updated, along with a few othersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the army had shrank to 26 divisions" --> "the army had shrunk to 26 divisions"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "100 Anti-tank guns" --> "100 anti-tank guns"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which saw the removal of one infantry brigade and it replaced by a brigade of tanks" --> this seems a little awkwardly worded
    I have reworded the opening of this para a bit, do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Corps-level asset" --> "a corps-level asset"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1941, the establishment of an higher establishment infantry division": reword to avoid "establishment" twice
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight Tank Brigades" --> "eight tank brigades"
  • "Infantry Tanks" --> "infantry tanks"?
    Updaed both of theseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reorganized" v "reorganised": I don't mind either way, but I suggest making this consistent in the article (I also see "realized" but "motorised" and other examples with -ize and others with -ise)
    standardised on "ise"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the 79th Armoured Division attached, which would be attached as needed": reword to avoid saying "attached" twice
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "8th Division (Syria)" -- not sure about this redlink, I suspect that it could get confused as a formation of the current Syrian armed forces -- is there potentially a title that might be better?
    Per Joslen, it appears to the be the official title used. I have removed the redlink from the article and moved the title to the notes section. I have also made an edit to the 8th Div article to reflect that this was the title after it was reformed, so that article should ideally cover everything so there should be no confusion with Syrian military formations.
  • in the County section, the second sentence in the paragraph "British planners" seems disconnected from the topic sentence and also seems to imply an action but doesn't quite stipulate what they did in response
    I have reworded the paragraph in question, do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and comments. It will be a few days, but I will be back to tackle them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to address all points that you have raised, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added my support above. Sorry for the delay in responding. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Sources are all high quality.
  • Some publishers are linked while others are not. Suggest not linking.
    Delinked sourcesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 2, 39, 76a, 84, 108, 156 - okay
  • fn 120: Should be pp. 77-78. This is a misreading of Buckley. Eight tank brigades equipped with Churchill tanks were requested for North West Europe before Montgomery arrived, but only three could be so equipped. Only one tank brigade was formed in 1943 (the 6th Guards Tank Brigade). Several others existed though: the 1st (disbanded October 1944), 10th (disbanded October 1943), 11th (disbanded October 1943), 21st (in Italy), 25th (in Italy), 31st, 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th (disbanded July 1943).
    Updated page reference, and I have made some edits to the wording after re-reviewing the source
    I wasted time trying to figure out what the three Churchill tank brigades were. I believe they were the 6th (Guards), 31st and 34th. Two others, the 21st and 25th, served in Italy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 175: Can't find this.
    Not entirely sure what happened here. I think I grabbed the wrong cite from the 59th article, to verify that the division was cannibalised. I have updated per Holborn, who specifically mentions it (and I have also made a tweak to the 59th article as I believe I was using that page to cite the general discussion around the manpower problem).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the source review and additional comments. I have attempted to rectify the highlighted issues.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 13 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/List_of_British_divisions_in_World_War_II&oldid=1038515357"