Talk:55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Redux. A few comments:

Lead

suggest "The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army's Territorial Army (TA) that did not see combat during the Second World War."
"and was under-funded and under-staffed"
"which was intended to increase battlefield mobility."
suggest "a process called "duplicating"" and also "duplicate"
the second mention of 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division shouldn't be bolded as it already has been in the first sentence
"training for future operations as well as training replacements for combat units"
"In 1944, it was earmarked for combat duties overseas, but instead was stripped of personnel and equipment which were transferred to fighting formations. ~~These units then joined fighting formations.~~"
link Military deception, also in the body
for formations link Military organization#Commands, formations, and units, also at first mention in the body
I believe I have addressed all these in my initial edit this morning.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body

"although it had units throughout Lancashire"
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"In April 1920, the division began reforming in Lancashire, as part of Western Command" but then "The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was primarily based in Liverpool" perhaps mention the name of the division when it was re-raised and if it did, when the name changed?
I have reworded and slightly expanded the background section to address this. Does this now work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why not use the ordinals for the subordinate brigades rather than piping them when first mentioned? This becomes relevant later.
I have updated to include the numbers. My concern here was the way the sources present the names. The 1921 list uses only names. The 1937 onwards list utilizes number and name. Joslen uses only numbers. I have no info on if these were official name changes, or when changes took place.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the TA ~~were~~was only permitted"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "a diminished level of prestige associated with serving in the TA"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"German motorised divisions contained three brigades". AFAIK this isn't right, because the Germans (except for a few independent brigades and for a short period within panzer divisions when they had rifle brigades consisting of two regiments) called a division's subordinate formations "regiments" generally consisting of three battalions (roughly akin to brigades in size, but not called that in any case). Also, when the Germans first motorised some of their infantry divisions in 1937 (like the 2nd Motorized Infantry Division) which this appears to be referring to, they gave up an infantry regiment, this structure was continued when they became panzergrenadier divisions during the war. So, they actually had the same basic structure as the British did. Not sure where French got this from?
I will double check the article against French, later today, to ensure it is following his thoughts correctly and do some follow-up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the full relevant quote from French is: "Their task was to carry out the rapid consolidation of ground captured by the Mobile divisions. To that extent, their function matched that of the German army's motorized and light divisions. But there the similarities ended. German motorized divisions were organized on a triangular basis and equipped in much the same way as First Wave infantry divisions. Light divisions were smaller but possessed their own tank battalion. In contrast, British motor divisions possessed sufficient transport to carry all of their infantry, but were otherwise much weaker than normal infantry divisions. They had only two infantry brigades, two artillery regiments, and no tanks."

French sources his info on the German divisions to pp. 560-561 of Matthew Cooper's The German Army, 1933-1945: Its Political and Military Failure. I have not been able to find a copy, or fully access one online. Google Book's snippet view seems to indicate the info comes from the bottom of page 560, and moving onto 561, although I can only access the section on 560: "The four motorised infantry divisions were smaller than the First Wave formations by some 1,280 men, although". Per Joslen, a motor division was about 3,700 men fewer than an infantry division.

I have been able to find very little info on the German pre-war motor divisions, although some non-RS seem to indicate the 2nd, 13th, 20th, and 29th having 3 regiments through to at least the Polish campaign. This US Army work on the campaign implies the same on p. 133: "The motorized infantry divisions were found to be unwieldly in operations in Poland. To permit better control, one motorized infantry regiment was detached from each of the motorized divisions." Ironically, this would appear to be the opposite lesson the British learned in France.

So, what would be the best way to reword to reflect? The below?

French wrote that the motor division had a similar role to the German Army's motorised and light divisions, "but there the similarities ended." German motorised divisions contained three regiments (akin to a British brigade) and were similarly equipped as a regular infantry division, while their smaller light divisions contained a tank battalion. The British motor division, while being fully motorised and capable of transporting all their infantry, was "otherwise much weaker than normal infantry divisions" or their German counterparts as it was made up of only two brigades, had two artillery regiments as opposed to an infantry division's three, and contained no tanks.

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I agree that there aren't many sources that are particularly clear on this issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RE→Royal Engineers and link at first mention
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"duplicate"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"by the time the Second World War began on 1 September."
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Second World War, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOC in full then (GOC) at first mention
link counter-attack
not sure of East of England is the right target, as it is a modern defined area, perhaps just "east of England" would be better?
suggest "the men of the division were able to considerably ~~increase~~improve their proficiency" to avoid using increased and increase in the one sentence. Also link mortar (weapon)
suggest "For example, the two Liverpool Scottish battalions were used as training units"
suggest "as part of the "Fortitude North" segment of the Operation Fortitude deception"
"The ruse of an attack on Norway was maintained through July 1944"
"Fortitude South"
"preconceived notion of what [Operation Fortitude] would accomplish"

That's it, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made an edit to address these additional comments. I have left a further note above regarding the German motor/light divisions for your review.
This is all good (I made a couple of tweaks myself), just make that tweak to the bit about French and we're good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the article per our discussion up above. Thank you for the review EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]