Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2nd Armoured Division, of the British Army, was created in the early stages of the Second World War and later destroyed in North Africa. The division was reformed in 1976, by the re-designation of the 2nd Infantry Division. The Cold War-era division was based in Germany, and was disbanded in 1982. The article has previously passed its GAN, and was given the once over by the GOCE. I believe the issues previously brought up have been addressed, and that it is now ready for the next stage of reviewing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed this at GA and believe that it meets the A-class standards. I corrected a couple of typos. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, corrections, and support.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Querying fn 49 - the citation is a little sparse. It could be made clear that this is a PRO document.
    I have updated this with a template and source info, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spot checks performed on fn 36, 100, 109, 114, 157 - no issues.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is looking good. Some comments:

Lead
  • in general, the lead refers to "elements" of the division, but it would be good to specify at least which brigades or a quantum of fighting regiments/battalions
    • suggest "elements of the 1st Armoured Division were assigned to it."→"two armoured brigades were assigned to it from the 1st Armoured Division"
      • Ah, I misread the body. Suggest "the 1st Light Armoured Brigade was assigned to it from the 1st Armoured Division, and the 22nd Heavy Armoured Brigade was transferred in from Southern Command."
    • suggest "In August 1940, elements of the division were transported to Egypt to reinforce Middle East Command"→"In August 1940, an armoured regiment from the division was transported to Egypt and transferred to the 7th Armoured Division, but it was replaced."
  • with the threat of a German invasion of the United Kingdom
    • piping just "invasion" is quite easter-eggy, suggest a broader pipe as above
  • suggest "Before leaving it swapped a brigade with the 1st Armoured Division, but as the new brigade consisted of only one armoured regiment, this reduced the division to a total of three armoured regiments"
  • suggest "an expeditionary force that was dispatched to Greece"
    • comma after Lustre
  • suggest "a German-Italian counter-attack"
    • comma after Sonnenblume
  • suggest "after the 2nd Infantry Division was renamed"→"by renaming the 2nd Infantry Division"
  • suggest "In 1982, the division reverted to its infantry title, and ceased to be an armoured formation."
    • suggest "In 1982, it reverted to an infantry division"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for reviewing this article too. I have made edits to the lede based off the above comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just a few tweaks before I dive into the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, after I made the changes you initially suggested, our friend Keith did a copyedit of the article including several of the tweaks. I have gone back through the lede to tweak again, per your comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • Iinterwar period
  • odd piping on "armoured-warfare" just link the article
  • link Division (military)#Infantry division, Division (military)#Armoured division
  • explain that the motor division was a form of infantry division
  • "They had "concluded" who is they? The Germans or British?
  • "According to French, this thinking" which thinking? In general the last few sentences in the para are confusing, apparently jumping from British to German and back. It would be better to describe the British approach, then contrast it with the German one
  • for "annexe the Sudetenland" link German occupation of Czechoslovakia

Down to Formation and home service, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made tweaks per the above comments. On re-reading the info by French, totally see where you were coming from. I have re-orded that, and hopefully it is more clear now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hotblack had joined the Royal Tank Corps in 1916, and by 1918..."
  • specify that both of the initial brigades consisted only of armoured regiments, if that is correct?
  • "the 1st Battalion, The Rangers," comma
  • "armoured warfare instructor"
  • suggest "On paper, the division had an establishment of 340 tanks... but by May, the division..."
  • just because lorries isn't really used outside the UK, suggest linking truck
  • "The 3H was transferred...Division, and was replaced..."
  • 3rd RTR→3RTR
  • suggest "Prior to being dispatched, the 22nd Armoured Brigade was exchanged with the 3rd Armoured Brigade of the 1st Armoured Division, but it only included one armoured regiment, 5th RTR.[35]"
  • Given the exchange appears on face value to have been an uneven one, why "The exchange brought the division up to 334 tanks"? Wouldn't this have reduced the tank strength? Perhaps some additional tank distribution occurred within the division prior to the exchange? If this isn't clear, maybe go with something like "After the exchange, the division tank strength was 334 tanks:..."
  • in general, try to avoid using parentheses, as it interrupts the flow of the prose. Suggest "159 light tanks; 74 Cruiser Mk IIs and 83 Cruiser Mk IVs; and 18 close support cruisers, which were armed with 3.7 in (94 mm) howitzers in place of the standard 2-pounder." and link QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer
  • the tank strength and the number of armoured regiments on arrival in Egypt is almost contradictory. How could there have only been three armoured regiments, but 334 tanks? That is over 100 tanks per regiment, when the establishment of an armoured regiment at the time must have been 50-60 at best.
    So these last three points seems to be the result of my own confusion and conflicting info in the sources. The October stats were cited to Hughes, "The British Armies in World War Two: An Organisational History", which I do not have access to. A while ago I messaged the editor, who inserted the info, and they started it was accurate to what the source said. The article previously had a table labelled "Tank strengths before departure in October 1940", and included the following info: KDG: 52 MK VI, 3H: 52 MK VI, 4H: 52 MK VI, 1st RHA: 4 MK VI, 2nd RTR: 6 A9 and 1 squadron of A10s, 3rd RTR: 1 squadron of A10s, 6 A10 CS, and 2 squadrons of A13s, and 5th RTR: 1 squadron of A10s, 6 A10 CS, and 2 squadrons of A13s (74 A10s and 83 A13s in total).
    Newbold provides stats for the end of September and the end of October, based off two reports per CAB 70/2 Return of Tanks in the Hands of the Troops in the United Kingdom. Both give the strength of the division, but does not include a breakdown by regiment. The states for both months include the 22nd Arm Bde, and include the 3 Arm Bde with 1st Arm Div.
    Joslen does not state any element of the 2RTR (3rd Arm Bde) was with the 2nd Div, and it shipped out and joined 7th Arm Div prior to the brigade switches between the 1st and 2nd. Playfair does not mention it being a squadron down when it is mentioned during the Compass fighting, and I dont have access to "Seconds Out!: A History of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment" to see if there is anything in there. Joslen also notes that the establishment for this period was 52 tanks per each of the six regiments, and ~340 in total. Newbold's cited stats make sense based off of the 4H, KDG, 3RTR, 2H, 3CLY, 4CLY. This is partially where my confusion comes in. All sources refer to the KDG being an armoured car regiment. But, this appears to be the result of them converting to such a role once they arrived in Egypt. I am working on getting a better source, but for the moment I have thrown in a line about his sourced to their website (which doesnt give much info). I infer they left their light tanks in the UK.
    So, considering the loss of the 22nd Arm Bde and the KDG giving up their tanks, it seems the division shipped about 160 tanks? I have removed reference to Hughes for the moment, reworded the info cited to Newbold, and thrown in a short sentence about the KDG in the "Arrival in the Middle East" section. For the moment, lacking additional detail on the KDG, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot get full access to their regimental history, so I cannot state where the tanks went but I have been able to add a little detail to explain the England-Egypt tank discrepancy.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4H, 3rd RTR and the 5th RTR→4H, 3RTR and 5RTR
  • link counter-attack
  • suggest "and advance as far as Sollum near the Libyan border, if the situation allowed"
  • suggest "It was also felt there was little threat until at least May, at which time additional forces would be available to reinforce the Cyrenaica garrison."
  • overran→overrun
  • Greek government
  • "and by reducing the garrison in Cyrenaica"
  • how many tank regiments were part of "1st Armoured Brigade was detached from the division"?
  • the 12th RHA→12RHA
  • 102nd Anti-Tank Regiment→102nd (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regiment

Down to Move to Libya, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have worked on the majority of what you have identified above. I have left a more detailed response for one point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, is is common practice to drop the definite article in front of unit abbreviations, ie the 5RTR→5RTR
    I have had issues with this when moving towards FAC, where it has been argued that the definite article should be included (if I am not mistaken). I have not made this change just yet, awaiting feedback on this point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When given in full, ie "the 5th Battalion, Foot and Mouth Regiment" the definite article is needed, but it is not used when using the initialism "5FM". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • engine-lives→engine lives
  • "Benghazi containedwas the port that was closest to the frontline"
  • suggest "Germany sent the Afrika Korps, consisting of the 5th Light Division and 15th Panzer Division, under the command of Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel."
  • there is an extra space in "Panzer IV"
  • by Ariete→by the Ariete division
  • amti-tank mines
  • "the Axis forces resumed their attack"
  • Luftwaffe needn't be italicised, as it is now in Merriam-Webster (per the rule of thumb at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
  • introduce AA
  • extra space in "request for the 3rd Armoured Brigade"
  • "a German artiller barrage"
  • suggest using "2nd Support group" throughout, for clarity
  • perhaps state how far Antelat is from somewhere else in order to place it geographically
    The sources do not provide a specific distance from this location to another, so I have provided a rough estimate based off the map cited within the sourced pages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benghazi was liberatedcaptured by Axis forces at dawn" neutral
  • in general the maps are cluttered, could you get a trimmed up version of the map that just shows the coastal areas where the fighting occurred?
    I was not able to locate template for just Cyrenaica, which would have assisted with this. However, I have made several changes to remove the markers that are not necessary for each section, and added another map to spread a few out. I have also shrunk the map markers too. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest mentioning Vaughan when the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade is first mentioned
  • "captured 21 Fooians after they ventured towards Mechili" Italians or Germans?
  • comma after "near Tobruk"
  • move the link to vanguard to first mention
  • "in the deaths of the entire crew"
  • 'M' Battery 3rd RHA
  • headquarters staff

Down to Cold War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further feedback. I have worked on the points you have highlighted, and left a few comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say when West Germany was created
  • suggest "While the BAOR fluctuated in size, including the number of divisions, the 2nd Infantry Division was part of it throughout this period."
  • two armoured battalionsregiments
  • "and the increased threat offrom the Soviet Union"
  • "headquarters units"
  • link mobile defence
  • "three mechanised infantry battalions"
  • link mechanised infantry at first mention and remove later link
  • link Attrition warfare
  • "the 2nd Infantry Division was re-designated as the 2nd Armoured Division"
  • suggest "Lübbecke, West Germany" and "Bünde, Germany"
  • "four squadrons; and three"
  • link Pioneer (military)
  • "headquarters of the armoured regiments"
  • the troop deployments weren't to Ulster (which includes Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan in the Republic), they were to NI
  • the 4th and the 12th Armoured bBrigades
  • inline→in line
  • "The Ddivision's assets"
  • there is no citation for the Divisional troops in the 2nd Armoured Division (Libya, 1941) OOB

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for your further feedback. I have made changes to the article based off your new comments, and your response to my earlier note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Looks like this one only needs one more editor's input, so I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 02:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Possibly create a redirect to here under the American English spelling of "Armored"? It's possible an American like me could read about this unit, and then search on here for more information, naturally using the American spelling
    New page and redirect createdEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was an division of the British Army" - a division
  • " In March, a German-Italian counter-attack, led to the destruction of that part of the division still in" - Don't think you need the second comma "a German-Italian counter-attack" isn't an appositive
    Addressed the two points aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to the destruction of that part of the division still in Cyrenaica and the ejection of the British, except for Tobruk" - How about "except for in Tobruk"? The current phrasing makes it sound like Tobruk is part of the British, not a city. Also link Tobruk
    I have a couple of changes to this sentence, including your recommendationsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Not seeing where the strength figure of 10,750 men is cited anywhere
    Tweaked and added a citeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "French wrote that it was "'tank-heavy' ... with too few infantry and support arms. It had six cavalry light tank regiments ... three medium regiments ... two motorized infantry battalions and two artillery regiments" - Maybe this is an engvar thing, but in American English at least, you never see the ellipses used in this way in formal writing.
    So, I have updated them to the single character variation, and the space before and after aligns with the Oxford style guide. Other than that, nothing is standing out to me. Could you elaborate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formation and home service
  • "In early 1940, the 1st Armoured Division had priority for equipment and the 2nd Armoured Division had to make do with the remainder" - Can you briefly state why? I'm assuming this is because the 1st Division was the front-line unit, while the 2nd was intended to be more of a reserve, but that's just guesswork
    Unfortunately, I do not have the source that is reference so cannot elaborate from it. However, I have made an addition to the article based off an essay wrote shortly thereafter, and by the 1st Arm Div's CO.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a pause here, I'll get back soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axis offensive
  • "Nearing the fort, they found it occupied and came under fire and German armoured cars moved forward" - Can this be rephrased to avoid two "ands" in the same sentence?
    I have made a tweakEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two troops from 5RTR were ordered to conduct a rearguard action and took hull-down positions" - Is it known how many tanks were with these two troops?
    Updated to reflect actual tank strengthEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Msus at the first use, not the second
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the day, the 3rd Armoured Brigade had been reduced to 18 light tanks, 26 Italian tanks, and 12 cruisers" - Are the cruisers still the Cruisers tanks you've been mentioning? If so, capitalize
    They were, so updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hog Farm Bacon 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The 3rd Indian Motor Brigade was attached to the division during the day, most of which was at Mechili." - So previously, you've associated the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade with Mechili. But now, the phrasing implies that most of the whole division was at Mechili. Is this right?
    No, the division was spread out and only this brigade was concentrated at Mechili. I have removed the latter part of the sentence to avoid confusion, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In total, around 3,000 prisoners were taken" - Do we know how many escaped?
    At least 150, but the sources do not provide a more reliable figure: "His force now comprised his own battery, 2 Browne's troop, some 90 sappers of the 4th Field Squadron, and some 60 men of the Lancers under Rajendrasinhji." I have mentioned this in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Neame says he was captured on 6 April. Seems odd not to mention that.
    I have updated a relevant sentence in the article to include thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the division's total casualties in all of the North Africa operations before it was disbanded
    Unknown. I have not found any sources that provide that number. We do know, however, that only nine tanks were lost in action; I have added that to the opening of the assessment section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cold War
  • I don't think White paper should be capitalized where it's used in the common noun sense towards the beginning of the section
    Capital letter droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Isby wrote brigades were reintroduced after the flaws of the new system became apparent." - Are the flaws the same thing as "He suggested the new structure may see problems "after some days in combat when fatigue and strain begin to take their toll" on the divisional headquarters and those in charge of the battlegroups"? If not, it's not really clear what these flaws are.
    The only thing that Isby has to say on the situation is "Flaws in the new structure soon became apparent. The drain of 3,000 BAOR troops to Ulster caused some armored and mechanized battalions to reduce their fourth squadrons or companies to cadre status. Hence, the brigade echelon of command was restored in January 1981." I believe Dodd's take is probably the most accurate, they realized the idea was flawed and they needed full time brigade staff. For example, Kneen & Sutton wrote "The [Brigade Electrical and Mechanical Engineers] had been early victims of reorganization, but subsequent exercises pointed to the clear need for an experienced officer at what was now the Task Force level" resulting in workshops providing officers to the task force hqs, a solution that "was an unsatisfactory expedient". They mention one major who "remembers the relief throughout 1 (BR) Corps among his fellow [Deputy Chief of Staffs] when each of the reformed brigades received a REME major, a warrant officer and clerk as full-time members of the brigade staff. The BEME and his staff were back at last." This implies the lack of full time staff was seen as a better solution to ad hocing it based off battalion HQs. I think that might be in danger of inferring what the source is saying though, and I am not sure how best to word that into the article (due to a lack of knowledge on the subject, and a lack of other sources outright stating what the issue was). Further feedback very much welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • "Watson, Graham; Rinaldi, Richard A. (2005). The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947–2004. Takoma Park, MD: Tiger Lily Publications for Orbat.com. ISBN 978-0-972-02969-8. Details the division's order of battle during the late 1970s and the early 1980s." - Belongs in the further reading, not the external links
    MovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7, EnigmaMcmxc, and Peacemaker67: - I have one significant concern about this article. I almost wonder if this should be split. I'm personally not seeing a claim in the article that the Cold War unit bears any sort of lineage from the WWII unit. I've also noticed that the sources used change abruptly at the WWII/Cold War split, suggesting that RS may treat these as two separate units. The length isn't an issue here, but this article just feels to me like it's trying to mesh together two concepts that aren't really strongly connected. Unless the RS treat the Cold War unit as a continuation of the WWII unit's legacy/history, I'm personally of the opinion that this should be split, rather than kept as a kinda quasi-WP:SIA. I'd like to here what the nominator and the other reviewers think, though. EnigmaMxmxc certainly has more knowledge about this subject than idea to, and PM and Hawkeye are liable to, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can gain a consensus among the four of us, I am good with whatever is decided. How would two articles about a division named the same go (2nd Armoured Division (World War II) (United Kingdom)?. Based off what I have read, I do not believe the Cold War edition claimed any sort of lineage other than a shared name (for example, there are sources explaining the difference between similarly named WWI and WWII divisions that is lacking for this WWII/Cold War issue). If anything, it was more of a continuation of the 2nd Division (kept the insignia, for example).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the question of a split is the only thing holding up my support, the rest is all addressed satisfactorily. Hopefully we can get some more input on this. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a split because of the lack of a historical connection. The insignia of the 2nd Division being the Cold War 2nd Armoured Division's insignia indicates that it carries on the 2nd Division traditions rather than those of the WWII 2nd Armoured. Due to its combat service, the WWII division is the primary topic and IMO does not need a disambiguator as the Cold War division existed for six years in peacetime, so the Cold War division should be the one with the disambiguator and linked to via a hatnote from the WWII 2nd Armoured article. Alternately, the 8 paragraphs on the Cold War division could be placed in the 2nd Division article instead. Kges1901 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split, per EnigmaMcmxc's points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should avoid placing the info on the 2nd Div's article, only due to its 200-something year history (on and off). I note that a similar split occurred with the French 4th Armoured Division: 4th Armored Division (France, 1940) and 4th Armoured Division (France, 1967). Should we follow suit with the naming convention? 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom, 1939) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom, 1976)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed split. Either the post-1976 division traces its lineage from the 2nd Infantry Division, with 200 years of history, yes, in that case the post-1945 history should be attached, possibly as a header "2nd Armoured Division 1976 - 1982," to 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Article sizes are 45kb for 2ID and 88ish kb for 2AD, so that's fine. We could double the size of the infantry-only history before we bump up against WP:SIZERULE, going on the size of this division's article. Or, the article should be left unchanged without a split on the argument that all divisions named "2nd Armoured" are the same formation. Divisions sometimes change their insignia; it doesn't mean that the whole lineage is dissolved.
the French 4th Armoured Division is not a similar case: the 1940 division is the 4eme Division cuirassée whose article title should be in the untranslated French, because to translate that properly we would need to indicate the connection with a https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuirasse, while by 1967 the French had fallen into line with British and American usage and the division's title was 4eme Division blindée which effectively exactly translates as 'Armoured.' Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The post-war lineage of the 2nd Armoured Division appears to be that the 2nd Infantry Division. My preference would be to move the section there, and put a WP:HATNOTE at the top of this article redirecting readers searching for the short-lived post-war formation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I am good either way (split or not split), I disagree about merging the content with the 2nd Div article. By my count, the info from this article would contribute about a 50 per cent increase in the existing content. At 60k+, that leaves little room for the article to be expanded and sourced to actually provide some divisional history compared to what it currently does.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While drafting my two paragraphs above, I had first inserted and then removed that I believed that if we needed History of the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) we should create that article. 1st Armoured Division has an associated commanders' list; history articles and/or other splits are common in detailing the history of military formations. When SIZERULE dictates a split, we should split the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just created two new sub-articles for the OOBs and GOCs, and removed about the same about bytes that the info from this article would add. Just to clarify then, we have consensus to move the 2nd Arm Div's Cold War stuff over to the 2nd Inf Div article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's developing. At any rate, there's also definitely getting consensus that the other information doesn't really belong in this article. Hog Farm Bacon 15:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, with that said, in the last 24 hours I have created two new sub articles for the 2nd Div to make some space: a GOC list and an OOB list. I have just pulled all Cold War related info from this article and slotted it into the 2nd Div article and the GOC list. This article is cleansed! I have now, as a byproduct, developed a keen interest in the 2nd Div history... damnit guys n' gals!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now, looks good. Hog Farm Bacon 19:48, 19 October 2020 (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/2nd_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=984390506"