Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial Force/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Waiting on a book delivery to put the finishing touches to this article, but except for a few more sentences about the use of second-line divisions and a paragraph on actions in France during the last half of the war, it's pretty much complete. Just looking for some general feedback on how the article hangs together. Any obvious gaps? Any statements that don't make sense? Anything not explained well? Anywhere where there is too little/much detail? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments: nice work. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- the second-line units responsibility for providing... --> the second-line units responsible for providing...?
- "Hay pp. 175–176": needs a year to distinguish it
- "Ian Hay p. 337" --> "Hay 1953 p. 337"?
- Reference #6 I suggest spilting the explanatory note from the citation into a footnote
- in the Bibliography, the Ian Hay work should use ttle case caps
- "File:NLS Haig - Interior of a ward on a British Ambulance Train in France.jpg": would look more visually appealing if the border was cropped
- Thanks. I've made all those changes as suggested. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments This is the sort of article I wish that I could see more of. It was fascinating reading, and should be sent to GA or A-class when we've finished here. Some minor comments:
- The legislation also made it illegal to amalgamate or disband territorial units or transfer soldiers between them. Can you double-check this? I think it was illegal to transfer ORs, but officers could still be transferred.
- I've checked all sources I have to hand, and nowhere is there a distinction. The source used in the article, Beckett's popular history of the territorials, simply states that it was illegal to transfer "territorials" between units. His more academic works don't go into much more detail, but one of them does state that "It was clearly stated on the standard form, E.624, which all territorials signed in accepting the overseas service obligation, that an individual would remain with his own unit" (my emphasis). Pure speculation on my part, but the officers were every bit as part-time, "weekend warrior" volunteers as the men, so it makes sense that they would also regard unit integrity as their right. On the other hand, the actual legislation made it illegal to transfer "without consent", so maybe officers, being officers, were more willing to agree.
- Not really. I asked because I came across the issue in the article on Ronald Adam. He pointed out that officers could legally be required to serve in any unit. But this was in the Second World War period - things might have changed by then as a result of the First World War experience. I checked the Queen's Regs, and this is explicitly stated in Chapter 9; but my copy dates from 1975 and is even more recent still. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- They did change. When the TF became the Territorial Army in 1921, Churchill promised to guarantee territorial unit integrity (it was known as "The Pledge"), but this was formally revoked in 1939. Factotem (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. I asked because I came across the issue in the article on Ronald Adam. He pointed out that officers could legally be required to serve in any unit. But this was in the Second World War period - things might have changed by then as a result of the First World War experience. I checked the Queen's Regs, and this is explicitly stated in Chapter 9; but my copy dates from 1975 and is even more recent still. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've checked all sources I have to hand, and nowhere is there a distinction. The source used in the article, Beckett's popular history of the territorials, simply states that it was illegal to transfer "territorials" between units. His more academic works don't go into much more detail, but one of them does state that "It was clearly stated on the standard form, E.624, which all territorials signed in accepting the overseas service obligation, that an individual would remain with his own unit" (my emphasis). Pure speculation on my part, but the officers were every bit as part-time, "weekend warrior" volunteers as the men, so it makes sense that they would also regard unit integrity as their right. On the other hand, the actual legislation made it illegal to transfer "without consent", so maybe officers, being officers, were more willing to agree.
- By 1913, approximately 40,000 territorials were too young to volunteer for service overseas Any idea how old you had to be to serve overseas? (It was 19 in the Australian Army.) (We already established above that you could join the TF at 17)
- Same. Edited to include that info.
- It was replaced in July by the second-line 60th (2/2nd London) Division Which came from Salonika. The service of the TF in Salonika and India is not mentioned.
- Indeed. Both Salonika and Italy only get a mention in passing, in the "Post-war" section. This reflects the main sources I used, which focus not so much on a blow-by-blow military history as on the general story of the force (basically, pre-war reputation, filling the gap and loss of identity). The TF service in Salonika and Italy don't appear to offer much to illuminate that story, hence the paucity of their coverage. I could add statements in the Gallipoli and Egypt sections mentioning deployments to/from Salonika, and another in the Late war section mentioning the 48th Division's transfer to Italy. Do you think that would suffice, or do you think more is required?
- India does get a mention in the "Territorial grievances" section, but as I understand it, the three TF divisions were simply garrison troops. Their main purpose, in terms of this story, was to free up regular divisions for service in combat zones. The only action to involve them, as far as the sources I used are concerned, was the Third Anglo-Afghan War, which delayed the return of some TF units back home until 1920, and I've added a sentence about that. Do you think that is enough, or is more required?
- Update: I've added a small section, "Other theatres", to cover the basic facts of the deployments to India and Salonika. I don't mention Italy there, but in the "Late war" section instead, because the 48th Division's deployment there slots quite nicely into the main theme of the 1st para in that section, detailing the improvements in the performance of TF divisions later in the war. I've also added a bit more about the shabby treatment of the terriers deployed to India in the grievances section. Factotem (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Update: I've added a small section, "Other theatres", to cover the basic facts of the deployments to India and Salonika. I don't mention Italy there, but in the "Late war" section instead, because the 48th Division's deployment there slots quite nicely into the main theme of the 1st para in that section, detailing the improvements in the performance of TF divisions later in the war. I've also added a bit more about the shabby treatment of the terriers deployed to India in the grievances section. Factotem (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Part of the 75th Division was also formed from nine TF (and three Indian) battalions. In 1918, the 52nd and 74th Divisions were sent to the Western Front, and the 10th, 53rd, 60th and 75th were converted to Indian divisions, with nine Indian and three British battalions. The 54th Division was alerted for the Western Front (and hence not converted) but remained in Palestine.
- Added a few sentences in the "Late war" section to cover all but the 54th Division. The article is creeping up just above the suggested 50Kb readable prose limit for FAC, so I'm not sure a statement about the 54th Division adds any value.
- Sure. I wouldn't worry about the suggested limit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Added a few sentences in the "Late war" section to cover all but the 54th Division. The article is creeping up just above the suggested 50Kb readable prose limit for FAC, so I'm not sure a statement about the 54th Division adds any value.
- As manpower shortages hit and the British Army reorganised, the six second-line home service divisions bore the brunt of reductions. The reduction was from twelve battalions to just nine. The rules were that no regular or first line TF units would be disbanded. So all the disbanded units were second-line TF or New Army.
- I read your very nicely done piece about this in The Bugle. The source I have simply states that the second-line TF bore the brunt of the reductions, without going into any of the background about how or why the British Army re-organised late in the war. If you could provide me with a source, I could add an explanatory statement about why the second-line TF bore the brunt. Would that be enough? Or, of course, you could simply expand on this subject yourself.
- A document in the War Memorial; but I had a look in Messenger, Charles (2005). Call to Arms: the British Army 1914-18. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-36722-1. OCLC 877447134. On the chapter on the 1918 manpower crisis it says:
Consequently, Haig decided to reduce each brigade by one battalion. This was to be done by amalgamating battalions or disbanding them and sending their men to other battalions with the same cap badge. The policy was that no Regular or first-line Territorial battalion should be disbanded and that second- and third-line TF units and the later-formed Service battalions would be given priority for disbandment. Pioneer battalions were exempted. The reorganisation took place during late January and February 1918. A total of 147 battalions were affected. Of these, twenty-two pairs of TF battalions were amalgamated and twenty-one TF battalions disbanded, together with eighty-four Service battalions. Usually, second-line TF battalions were amalgamated with first line. (p. 275)
- He sourced it to the British copy of the document I remember. You might also consider reading Chapter 3, which is all about the Territorial Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- A document in the War Memorial; but I had a look in Messenger, Charles (2005). Call to Arms: the British Army 1914-18. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-36722-1. OCLC 877447134. On the chapter on the 1918 manpower crisis it says:
- I read your very nicely done piece about this in The Bugle. The source I have simply states that the second-line TF bore the brunt of the reductions, without going into any of the background about how or why the British Army re-organised late in the war. If you could provide me with a source, I could add an explanatory statement about why the second-line TF bore the brunt. Would that be enough? Or, of course, you could simply expand on this subject yourself.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's high praise indeed. Thank you. Yes, planning a run at FAC via A-Class for this article. And thanks for your feedback. I've made changes accordingly, and keen to know if you think they are enough or whether more more is required. Factotem (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)