Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 9th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division was a British Army division during the Second World War. The division, raised initially as a motor division before being converted into an infantry formation, remained in the UK until it was deployed to Normandy. In Normandy, it was involved in several brief sharp clashes with German forces (Operation Charnwood and Pomegranate) before the British manpower crisis came to a head. In August, as the junior division in Normandy, it was disbanded and its units transferred to other divisions to bring them up to full strength. The article has recently been overhauled and greatly expanded, was given a copyedit by the GOCE, and has just past its GA review. I believe it is ready for the next step.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • All images are appropriately licenced.
  • Consider alt text for all images.

Gog the Mild (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. There is quite a bit of dropping of the definite article in front of Arabic ordinals (which is common in military circles, but isn't grammatically correct), but I have a few other comments as well:

  • generally, the first sentence should have the final name bolded, not the initial one. The article is already at the final name, so just adjust the bolded name to the article name and when you introduce the initial name in the lead, bold that also, ie The 59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division was formed in September 1939
    Should not be addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also in the first sentence, was it a motorised infantry division, or was it just an infantry division? I suggest we should indicate what it fought as, not what it was raised as
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 59th Division→59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34,500 20-year-old→34,500 twenty-year-old
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had formed 164th Brigade→had formed the 164th Brigade, but why is this relevant, as it doesn't seem to be involved in the 59th Division?
    Rejigged this sectionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was expecting to get the constituent battalions of each brigade when they are introduced, as you did with 18th Div
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 59 Division→The 59th Division
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "training new recruits andincluding conscripts", as recruits can be either
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This freed up the 197th Infantry Brigade, and an artillery regiment to be transferred to the 59th Division, which became the 59th...
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • drop comma from " in Southern England, that would"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was short of equipment →The 59th Division was short of equipment
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • allowed the 59th Division
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • commanded the 132nd Brigade
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • started to arrived
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was replaced by Major-General William Bradshaw, if that is right?
    correct and addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the 21st Army Group
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • carried out by the 3rd Infantry Division
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • assigned to the Corps→assigned to that corps
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • supported by the 27th Armoured Brigade
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the 3rd Canadian Division
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the 176th
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 176th Brigade's
    likewiseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Hitlerjugend→12th SS Panzer Division
    If I have not misinterpreted, amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • we have "German reoccupation of La Bijude" then "59th Division consolidated its hold on La Bijude" but nothing in the intervening period to indicate the recapture?
    Highlighted that in the prior sentence nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 59th Division consolidated
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 9 July, the 59th Division
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At midday, the 33rd Armoured Brigade, attached to the 3rd Infantry Division
  • The 3rd Infantry's advance
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • resisting the 59th's push
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3rd British and
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd Canadian divisions→3rd Canadian Divisions
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following morning, the 59th
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Nick-D[edit]

I've steered clear of wording issues given PM's very comprehensive review, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest explaining what "second-line" means in the context in which it's used here.
  • Likewise, what's meant for this to be a "duplicate" division?
    In regards to these two, I have made some changes to the article to hopefully make this a bit more clear for the reader. Do they work?
  • "piecemeal use" and "The TA would join regular army divisions in waves " seems contradictory
    I have made some changes to this, I hope it works better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the 1/6th Battalion South Staffordshire Regiment suffer casualties during its deployment to France in 1940?
    It does appear that secondary sources offer little in the way of casualty information for the fight and flight in Flanders.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was short of equipment..." what point in time are the stats for equipment? When was this rectified? - my understanding is that some key deficiencies were made good quite quickly.
    A lack of equipment seems to be a common theme among the 2nd line formations. I have added the date for when the stats are from. Doing some digging on the artillery and AT situation, I have read some production figures that suggest it would have taken a full month's worth of 25-pounder output to fully equip one division around May-June 1940. The existing, and somewhat offhand comment, that was worked into the overall of new equipment arriving in 1941 seems the best that can be dug up at the moment. I don't have access to Knight, but could request with the reference chaps for the pages before and after the cited one to see if Knight provides more information in this regard?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division returned to the United Kingdom" - was Northern Ireland not part of the UK at this time?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the division had had little in the way of tank-infantry co-operation training or experience, the 34th Tank Brigade was attached in September." - was this only for training purposes? The British infantry divisions which fought in Western Europe in 1944-45 almost always had a tank or armoured brigade attached, so it may have been doctrine.
    The specific quote from Place is "It n doubt helped that for the remainder of 1943 the brigade was affiliated for training purpose to 59th Division, whose troops had negligible training in co-operation with tanks." He then goes into quite a bit of detail on the tactical changes in training for the tank brigade and advancing with infantry. From the doctrine and operational aspect, Buckley and Hart argue that the armour and tank brigades being attached for attacks was part of the Colossal Crack process of reducing casualties and concentrating firepower. Buckley also argues there was a breakdown between official doctrine and how Montgomery wanted to use his brigades, as well as a lack of production factoring in. All taken together, yes, I think this was merely for training purposes and not another attempt at reimaging the mixed division or getting the 59th ready for how Monty wanted to fight Normandy. With that all said and done, suggestions for rewording if you see fit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late June, Montgomery ordered XII Corps, part of British Second Army and of 21st Army Group, to be shipped to France due to the need for fresh infantry formation" - surely the corps and this division were programmed to be deployed to Europe at some stage? Did Monty have this brought forward?
    From what Stacey writes, Monty appeared to have total control over who was being to shipped to France and when: "[Monty's] senior administrative officer 'had informed him that while another Corps could be brought in, he could not maintain another body of Army Troops in the existing area'. Moreover, while Montgomery wanted more infantry, he did not need more armour at present. Therefore, the Guards Armoured Division and the 4th Canadian Armoured Division were to be "phased back" and come in at the end of the build-up. His immediate intention was to build up the 12th Corps by bringing in the 53rd and 59th Infantry Divisions..."
  • [18][74][89][90][91][83] - this number of sources for two fairly simple sentences seems excessive.
    I have addressed thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite their precarious position, German infantry conducted counter-attacks and attempted to retake lost villages." - needs a reference
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest noting that Charles Perry Stacey was the Canadian official historian
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Montgomery to Brooke in the quotebox doesn't really work - the quote appears next to the subsequent para. I'd suggest not using a quotebox here.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was included on a list of the eight most reliable divisions that fought with 21st Army Group during the Normandy Campaign" - whose list was this?
    Further refined using the complete context of what Hart was discussing, rather than downplaying what was previously in the article when it was being revamped.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest saying what a battlefield clearance unit was Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen does not provide much more detail than "controlling and organizing the clearance of all equipment", which I have inserted into the article. I don't dare to elaborate further, and the other sources I have don't appear to discuss it (if I am not mistaken).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's the case @Hawkeye7: is there anything from your research on logistics in the Normandy campaign which explains this term? Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it briefly in the British logistics in the Normandy Campaign article, under "Salvage" down near the bottom of the article. The 197th Brigade was engaged in collecting the vast quantity of equipment that was abandoned in the Falaise area. It remained engaged in this work in the area until December. Components included No. 17 Field Salvage Unit. A great deal of equipment was collected and restored to use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the heads-up about that article. I have added a note into this article largely based off what is in that one to give a little more info on the bigrade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick pass of some of the issues you have raised, I will attempt to clear the rest in the coming days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work, and sorry about the slow response. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work - I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division was an infantry division --> "The 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division was an infantry division"
  • FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division was part of the motor division concept --> "Established using the motor division concept, the division..."?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • offensive, Operation Goodwood, that was launched --> "offensive, Operation Goodwood, which was launched"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian David French wrote and the French wrote that the motor --> is there a way to vary the language a little?
    I have made a tweak, hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudetenland is overlinked in the Background section
    removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • scheme (A project --> lower case "a"?
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • although it was not official disbanded --> "although it was not officially disbanded"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 59th was the final British infantry division to arrive in Normandy: missing full stop
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this new role of organising..., in order to undertake its new role": the last part is probably not necessary
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, Hart and Holborn are out of sequence alphabetically
    woopsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Normandy Memorial trust" --> "Normandy Memorial Trust"
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "59th infantry near Caen" --> "59th Division infantry near Caen"?
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest maybe adding alt text: [1]
    I have added some alttextEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review and comments. I have tried to address all points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Suggest adding |lastauthoramp=y to the templates of all multi-author or multi-edited works to match the format used in the cites.
    I believe I have addressed this nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the title in Stacey
    LikewiseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise cites and refs are properly formatted.
  • Refs are highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review, and commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • after the re-emergence of Germany as a significant Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • German demands for the annexation of Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia Pipe Czechoslovakia to First Czechoslovak Republic.
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • between Germany and the United Kingdom and its allies Unlink the UK because of common term.
    Link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland American annex.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • began implementing lessons learned from the campaign American learned.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • field guns and seven 4.5-inch howitzers Metric units?
    convert template addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first major joint Anglo-American exercise Unlink American because of common term.
    Link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S." v. "US".
    consistency addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • attacks had utilised flanking maneuvers, Charnwood American maneuvers.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • intended as a frontal assault on the city.[93][92] Reorder the refs.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was captured without any fighting.[131][130] Same as above.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military hisorian Lionel Ellis stated Typo of historian.
    fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This involved the build up of infantry American build up.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • German defenders withdrew under the cover of dark You mean darkness?
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • manpower crisis had come to a head You mean ahead?
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • fully trained and combat ready men Combat ready needs a hyphen.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries, looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2019 (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/59th_(Staffordshire)_Infantry_Division&oldid=911913039"