Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

During the Second World War, the Australian Army decided to raise four machine gun battalions, one for each Second AIF division. In doing so, they revived a concept that had been first used by the Army during the First World War, by concentrating the machine gun platoons of the standard infantry battalions into a single entity, in order to provide a higher volume of direct fire support. In practice, the concept was largely misused (or not used) by commanders on the ground, particularly after the focus of Australian ground operations shifted to the Pacific. After the war, the concept was discontinued. This article is about the first of the battalions to be raised. It was recently expanded from a stub, and even more recently underwent a successful GA nomination. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support
- No dabs, has alt text, images / licensing look fine to me, captions ok, rmefs, external links check out, no duplicate wikilinks.
- I reviewed for GA and following the further development that has occurred since then I am satisfied it meets the A class criteria.
- I did however complete a minor c/e, fix the links to the AS official histories and do a few other minor tweaks [1]. Pls review and adjust as req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the review and those adjustments (they all look good to me). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Nice to see a comprehensive article on one of these (to modern eyes) unusual units. I have the following comments:

The lead is a bit short
- Yep, an article of this length would generally warrant a couple of paragraphs in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept had originated within the Australian Army during the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915" - just to check, was this not a standard part of British Army divisional organisation? (the Machine Gun Corps article implies that the British army followed the same evolution as the Australian forces)
"During the inter-war years, the machine gun battalions had been deemed unnecessary and, as such, when the Army was reorganised in 1921, they were not re-raised, but in 1937, as the Army looked to expand as fears of war in Europe loomed, four such units were raised within the part-time Militia, by converting light horse units and motorising them" - I'd suggest splitting this into two or three sentences
"the 2/1st was fully motorised upon formation " - please explain what this meant (eg, was it equipped with trucks or tracked carriers, or both?)
Note that the battalion travelled to the UK as part of a larger body of Australian troops
I'm not sure about the combination of "the battalion" and "they" - "they" seems appropriate for discussing the unit's members, but not the unit itself
- Believe I actioned this during my copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"as a result lost the majority of its vehicles, which were considered impractical in the jungle" - just to check, was this the only significant change to the battalion's structure? (I imagine so given these were pretty simple formations)
- Sorry, Nick, I haven't been able to find anything else about this. I will keep looking, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries - it's a pretty obscure topic! Probably the only source would be primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a look at Kuring and tweaked the sentence as he states that the MG Bn's trucks were changed for jeeps and trailers at this time (per page 207). He mentions no other changes to structure at that time that I could see. I hope this helps. Any issues pls let me know / adjust as you see fit. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be noted how large the battalion was at full/nominal strength? From memory, the MG battalions were surprisingly large units. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nick, I think I've got all of these. Please let me know if I haven't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

Looks typically well researched etc. - nice work!
Could the first sentence run "The 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion was a battalion of the Australian Army during the Second World War" or something like that? It would instantly contextualise it for readers, without repeating the dates that come after it.
- I didn't include that when I copyedited but agree it would probably be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"became the subject of a book by Ion Idriess." - could we say "a book by the writer Ion Idriess", as although it's linked, it would help the casual reader.
- Hmm, I think any author would be considered "a writer", so unless we can narrow it down to "historian" or "journalist" or some such, I think it's better left alone... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion was formed on 14 December 1939,[2] as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) following a reorganisation of the 6th Division's infantry battalions, which saw the removal of the machine gun platoons that had previously existed within each battalion and their centralisation in a single unit." - it's a long first sentence. Could you break it after AIF?
"During the inter-war years, the machine gun battalions had been deemed unnecessary and, as such, when the Army was reorganised in 1921, they were not re-raised, but in 1937, as the Army looked to expand as fears of war in Europe loomed, four such units were raised within the part-time Militia, by converting light horse units and motorising them." - another long sentence. Break after "re-raised"?
Is there a link we could use for "motorised"? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, I've made a few tweaks to adjust the article in line with your suggestions. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ -- I'm sure I'll be supporting after points above are addressed...

Given the number of reviewers [successful advertising campaign, Rupert -- well done!] I've concentrated on prose [today's word to watch -- "subsequently"... ;-) ] -- pls let me know any concerns there.
Structure and level of detail seem fine.
I did double-check image licensing and that looked good.
No issues source-wise -- reliable and formatting is okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and copy editing, Ian. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Felt the new lead could use a little tweaking but, apart from that, the changes since I last looked seem fine, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the story of the MG companies being created at Gallipoli due to a lack of artillery support is a strange one I haven't seen before. Australian brigades were brought into line with British establishments during the "doubling of the AIF" period in Egypt of early 1916, after the withdrawal. By this point, all British brigades on the Western Front had a machine gun company, and Australian brigades about to deploy to the same place were aligned. Same thing happened with the WWI MG battalions a bit later. I'll dig up the reference, but the directives drafted by White in 1916 are very clear. I'm pretty sure Bean explains it the same way, but I'll pick out the relevant page. Forget that, misread it. The article text is pretty much on the money, although it wouldn't hurt to note that the Australian formation of companies and battalions in WWI conformed to the British establishments. More to come.
The origins bit would tend to make the casual reader think the idea of MG battalions originated at Gallipoli, which isn't right. The idea of concentrating machine guns under the control of brigades had its Australian genesis at Gallipoli, per Bean Vol II p. 153, and the numbers per battalion were increased from two to four around July/August 1915 at Gallipoli per Bean Vol II p. 514, but the idea of forming them into discrete companies was a British one with which the AIF fell into line. The battalions were a much later idea, 1918, again a British establishment decision followed by Australia as a Dominion, but also to ensure interoperability.
link RMS Queen Mary
suggest conducting patrols and exercises - it is a bit repetitive at present
link Durban
link Kantara to El-Qantarah el-Sharqiyya
Royal Northumberland Fusiliers
the despatched/dispatched variations don't make sense to me.
suggest linking the Greek towns and locations mentioned
just need to tweak the equipment bit on Crete, either they lost it all or they lost the bulk of it (given one company had all its equipment)
the references to "main body" re:Crete, would probably be better rendered as "remainder"
Haupt returning to the battalion jars a bit. When had he left?
training and jungle training is a bit repetitive. Suggest dropping the second mention of training, leaving just "jungle exercises"

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, PM. I think I've got all of these. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (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.