Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named)

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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the counterpart to the List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100) list, and rounds off the entire list of all British infantry brigades during the Second World War. It even includes, much to my horror, a brigade that is not listed by Joslen (blasphemy?). The list has been given the once over by the GoCE, and all items raised so far in the review of its counterpart have been implemented. Look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass: licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: I reviewed the sister list at ACR and most of those points have already been dealt with for this list. I have only a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the 'first-line', would" and "the 'second-line' would " --> I believe the MOS prefers double quote marks for these instances, although potentially the marks aren't required at all
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of infantry brigades numbered 103 to 308" --> 101 to 309 per the article title? That said, there doesn't appear to be a 309th Brigade in the table, so potentially the list title is incorrect?
    Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there, I have moved the page and made relevant changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority of the brigade were" --> "The majority of the brigade's personnel were"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • endash for the title of the Martin work
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove the publisher link for the HMSO from the Ellis & Butler, and Gibbs sources (already linked earlier with the Butler source)
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest consistency with bundling citations per the ACR of the sister article
    All that can be bundled, have been. The ones that are left over, are book cites mixed with internet cites.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all point raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7:

  • Suggest moving the sentence that starts with "At the outset of war, the army had 24 infantry brigades" and the one after it to after fn 11, although it does seem to contradict the quote
  • Then break the paragraph in two at this point.
    I re-reviewed Frasier and made some tweaks to the point being made, and I have moved the text that you highlighted. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expression "garrisoned in the UK" sounds odd, as they weren't really a garrison in the UK.
    I have switched it up to 'stationed', although I believe the two or three main bases where major formations are based in the UK are called garrisons.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there seems to be rather more. Struck this comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "engaged in lopsided affairs due to not being concentrated" Are talking about the divisions or the brigades here?
    I have made a few changes here to clarify that it was discussing brigades.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't say what the difference was between an infantry brigade, a lorried infantry brigade and a motor brigade was.
    So, Joslen does not state specifically what either are. However, a few sources do explain the difference between infantry, lorried, and motor battalion, which basically leads to the naming convention, if it can even be called that. Not mentioned in the text on this particular article, trying out the initial change here first before making it on the other, the 7th Motor Brigade was formed with a bunch of motor rifle battalions. After the last had left, it was renamed a "lorried" brigade. But then it reverted to just an infantry brigade when it later fought in Italy. I don't know if this means the brigade lost the extra trucks it had in the desert, or if they just dropped the name. On the flip side, the 61st brigade despite being formed with a bunch of rifle motor battalions, didn't get given the "motor" name. When they were reorganized as regular infantry battalions, the brigade was renamed a lorried brigade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 164th Infantry Brigade: typo "uly"
    Tweaked!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great work pulling this together. A few comments:

Lead
  • for "formations", link Military organization#Commands, formations, and units
  • "Brigades were flexible formations and rarely maintained the same subunits" as a general rule, in a Commonwealth context a "subunit" is a company-sized force element subordinated to a unit of battalion or regiment size. I think you mean infantry battalions here?
  • "Those numbered 100 and below are located within their own list."
  • "based around a cadre of soldiers"
  • "The new formation, referred to as the second-line, would then be expanded until it reached full strength."
  • "The retraining of members of the Royal Artillery also saw the creation of many additional infantry brigades."
    I have made edits to address the aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • suggest "however, these were administrative structures and not operational units"
  • suggest "The fighting unit of an infantry regiment was the battalion"
  • suggest linking brigadier at first mention in the body
  • arrant space in 144th Infantry Brigade
  • "corps-level" as it is a compound adjective - but couldn't a brigade be directly answerable to a corps or higher-level command? Army, Army Group?
  • suggest linking division at first mention in the body
  • suggest linking Territorial Army at first mention in the body
  • suggest "to maintain the peace and defend the British Empire" rather than "police", as they rarely performed a policing function in the common use of the word
  • I am not sure what is meant by "the British Army did not field force of brigades and divisions except on paper", it seems to be missing some words
    I have made edits to try and address the aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the responses down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • at some point before you mention artillery etc you need to introduce the idea that brigades were supported in combat by divisional or directly attached combat support and combat service support units and subunits
    Thank you for your time, review, and comments. Out of the above, I believe I just have just this last one to addressEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Line added to try and address this pointEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "cobbled together from"→assembled from, a quote here seems unnecessary, and cobbled together is a bit too informal
  • "one each based"→"and one each was based"
  • suggest "The majority of these were assigned to the 201st through 227th Independent Infantry Brigades (Home)"
  • "303rd to 308th Infantry Brigades"
  • suggest "The [[116th Infantry Brigade Royal Marines|116th]] and the [[117th Infantry Brigade Royal Marines|117th]] Infantry Brigades Royal Marines"
    Tweaks have been made on all the above points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their units returned to their parent battalions" this hasn't been explained. Suggest you explain that the crews for these AT guns were drawn from the infantry battalions of the brigades
    I looked through numerous sources and could not find something that pinpointed this. I think I overshot my position referencing the returning to their parent battalions via Joslen, so I have removed it. French notes, for example, that they were formed in 1939. Another source implies that the infantry manned the guns, but does not outright state it. Another stated that they were formed by the battalion AT platoons, which were made up of men who had been trained on AT guns prior to their formation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "This included brigades, in the UK, being reorganised into brigade groups, which involved attaching artillery, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns, machine guns, and engineers to them." to avoid the repetition of "This included"
  • "This change was then implemented in formationsbrigades overseas"
  • I don't understand what "and were engaged in lopsided affairs due to not being concentrated with other formations" means
    Several examples were provided of brigade groups being engaged and mauled by divisional forces. I have reworded the sentence, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each battalion having enough transport capable of moving each platoon's weapons, equipment, and supplies" why is a platoon being used here? Surely the reference should be to the battalion? And does this mean they had enough transport to move the troops as well, or just the weapons, equipment, and supplies? If the latter, is this really "highly motorised"? Perhaps for the time period in comparison to other countries?
    I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting, specific to this point. The other sources reference the marching and additional transport as the war moved on. French is the one who specifies the platoon-based vehicle etc.: "In 1934 Montgomery-Massingberd ordered the wholesale mechanization of the artillery and first-line transport of the infantry on this basis. Beginning in 1936 each infantry platoon was issued with a ... truck ... and able to carry all of its weapons, equipment, packs, and greatcoats. ... Sufficient reserve companies of motor transport were also to e provided to lift one infantry brigade in every division."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the infantry walkedmarched"
  • "was referred to as a lorried infantry battalions"
  • suggest "A variant was the motor battalion, drawn from the army's rifle regiments. They were fully motorised but varied in organisation compared to the other infantry battalions."
    Rest of these points tweaked per your suggestionsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the table. Will check that shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch the nbsp in unit links that you haven't introduced an additional space
    I think I got them all. But please feel free to highlight any I have missed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest consistently ending the Notes with a period
    Tweak for consistencyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general terms, I find the table hard to follow. There are numerous brigades where there is no establishment date that are marked as existing, and the date in the second column is after the date in the third column. It seems to me that at least the year of establishment (even if it is pre-war) should be included, and perhaps the columns made chronological from left to right. Happy to discuss this further.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking to work on the additional points (and the remaining one from the initial list) over the next few days.
    Regarding the last point, the list started life as an overhaul to what was just one long list of links focused on the Second World War. There are a lot of Hart's Annual Army List and the War Office's Monthly Army Lists online, but I would not be able to swear by the accuracy of providing a year of formation for the pre-1939 brigades as they do not necessarily state when one brigade was formed, transferred, or disbanded (you have to do a bit of digging and cross-referencing). In the immediate post-war period, there does seem to be a lack of documentation (online, at the least) for appointments and formations being created/disbanded.
    Does the entry for the 113th Infantry Brigade provide a case example of what you are finding confusing? In this example, the brigade was formed in 1939, along with the other 2nd-line brigades. It was active prior to the war starting, so has been marked as "existing" in the list. The next (third) column over indicates that it was disbanded in 1944. Back in the second column, we have that second formation date for when it was reformed, and a N/A as it was not disbanded prior to the war ending (no ideas when it was actually disbanded). Is it wording? Layout? Suggestions for making it easier to read?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just waiting on feedback on the changesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 and EnigmaMcmxc: Are we OK to promote? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, yes happy for ACR. The table might need work for FL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. There is a very heavy reliance on a single source, albeit a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - I've closed this one as promoted - but since the article was moved mid-ACR and the ACR is still at the old name, will that throw the bot off? Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 4 March 2022 (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/List_of_British_infantry_brigades_of_the_Second_World_War_(101–309_and_named)&oldid=1075217144"