Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/12th (Eastern) Infantry Division

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division, during the Second World War. Under-trained, it was taken off guard duty in the UK and dispatched to France as a labour division. It was intended to be used to help construct airfields and pillboxes. However, in May 1940, when the German advance through the Ardennes caught the British and French off guard, the division was thrown into the frontline. It was then spread-out, overwhelmed, and defeated by several panzer divisions, although it did manage to cause some delays and buy precious critical hours for the BEF evacuation. What was left returned home, and the division was broken-up in order to bring other formations up to strength. The article has had the once over by the GOCE, and has just passed its GA review. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK. Please do not use collapsed tables, it's not allowed per MOS:COLLAPSE. (Collapsed navboxes are OK though). (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the image review. Per the policy, they are allowed if the material within is a repetition of what is in the article or supplementary. In this case, all important units are already mentioned in the article. Or they can be set so that they default open, but can be collapsed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

I'm surprised this hasn't attracted any reviews, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • How well equipped were the infantry units at the start of the battle of France? Did they have at least small arms and some anti-tank weapons? (the rapid destruction of units by German tanks suggests they didn't have any significant anti-tank capability though)
    Ill take another look at the sources to try and provide some more insight in the article.
    I have added in a little extra info, after re-reviewing the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnants of the 12th Division were evacuated back to England. For example, only 75 men of the 578 men of the 6th RWK and 80 of the 605 strong 5th Buffs returned" - is it possible to provide other figures on the numbers of soldiers who returned to the UK?
    I have not found any source that provides a breakdown of the BEF's casualties by division or formation, and very few sources that discuss the labour divisions in any detail. The official summary of casualties for the BEF comes from The Army Medical Services, Campaigns, Volume I by Francis Crew. However, those casualties are presented on only one page (per the index I have seen), which makes me conclude they just provide the entire BEF losses and not a breakdown.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I consulted about a dozen other sources on the subject, and was unable to find overall casualty information. I was able to source the 35th's brigades casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what the units which remained in the UK did while the rest of the division was in France? Were they attached to another unit, and were they able to continue training and equipping?
    After reviewing additional sources, I haven't been able to find anything that discusses what the elements of the division that remained in the UK. If I had to WP:SYS and WP:OR, they were purportedly training but probably didnt do much of it on an actual level based off the lack of equipment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any historians provided a more critical assessment of the destruction of this division and the other similar divisions? Losing the infantry component of an infantry division in one-sided combat is a very heavy price to pay for slowing the Germans down slightly. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources treat the labour divisions as a footnote. Several do all make the same point about inflicting delays, but I was able to find a couple that provided more of a critical overview. I have rewritten a paragraph with this in mind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I missed these responses. I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

Will review this once I get through an FAC review I've been meaning to do for awhile. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend linking pillboxes in the lead
    LinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 36th Brigade dispatched the 6th RWK and the 5th Buffs to Doullens." - Was this while it was part of Petreforce?
    Yes. Based off the OH, it was part of both at the same time. Although its references to Petreforce, kinda of ... petre out ;)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having to stop now, will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For example, only 75 men of the 578 men of the 6th RWK" - drop the first usage of "men"
    Done, although I also reworded the entire section at the same time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing where the circa 6,000 men figure from the infobox is directly cited; it looks like it may be an estimation from the circa 18,000 from the three divisions; is this estimation found in the sources?
    It is, yes, a rough estimation based off the 18,000 figure/3. It can be removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sources don't provide that estimate, I think it should probably be removed. If the strength is unknown, there's nothing we can really say. Hog Farm Talk 21:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed, per this discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any overall casualty numbers or estimates for the division known?
    Based off all there source I have read, no.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend dropping the "Whereas" in note E to make the phrasing a little smoother.
    Updated per your recommendation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here, that's all my comments, I think. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and comments, much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Without the means to stop them, the Germans overwhelmed and destroyed the division" --> "Without the means to stop the attacking Germans, the division was overwhelmed and destroyed"?
    Tweaked, per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to recruit over their establishments (aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations)": this forms part of quite a long sentence and probably could be boiled down to "to recruit over their establishments (aided by improved pay and conditions)". The extra details could then be placed in a note if you feel they are necessary
    I have reduced the sentence per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division was widely dispersed": might be a good idea to very briefly explain that this wide dispersal weakened its positions/front?
    I have added a little area, I hope this works?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Fraser likewise wrote...": probably need to explain who Fraser is here
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 25 October, the 2/6th East Surrey Regiment and the 5th Buffs were exchanged between the 36th and the 37th Brigades": do we know why?
    Joslen does not provide any context. The Buffs and East Surrey histories dont appear to either.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As 1939 turned into 1940, the division became" --> "In early 1940, the division became"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnants of the 12th Division were evacuated back to England": was this via Dunkirk?
    It appears the 36th did, and the rest of the brigade evacuated via Cherbourg. I have updated the article to reflect.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy edit

  • I'm not so sure about including "Unskilled labour" in the type field - it was an infantry division, not an unskilled labour division, and plenty of grunts have been used in manual work over the ages
    Fair enough, removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "score political points" - this strikes me as a bit slangy - is there a better way to put this?
    I have made a alteration here, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Pillbox (military) in the lead (and you've got "pillboxes" in the lead but "pill-boxes" in the body)
    Linked, and edits made for consistencyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1937 and throughout 1938" - as far as I'm aware, Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia didn't begin until after the Anschluss
    I dug out my copy of Bell, to take a look at what I was referencing. During 1937, the Sudeten German Konrad Henlein agitated for the Sudeten autonomy. The November 1937 Hossbach conference, was an internal discussion about the seizure of the country. On 7 December 1937, a directive was issued that started the process for Operation Green to be planned. Bell argued that from the 5 November meeting onwards, Hitler's goal was to crush the Czechs.
    With that and your comment in mind, I have fleshed that part out a little. Do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British prime minister Neville" - when used as a title, PM should be capitalized
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2/5th, the 2/6th, and the 2/7th Battalions" - it might be worth including an explanatory note on unit designations that might appear to be fractions to lay readers
    I have added in a note that explains what this is all about, just at the end of the para introducing the various battalions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done up through the initial service section - will finish later. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments so far, I have attempted to address all of them. Look forward to additional notes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth pointing out that the German invasions of Belgium and the Netherlands were a feint to draw the Allies north - most readers won't know the intricacies of German planning (or be familiar enough with the geography to know that the attack on Belgium/Netherlands and the Ardennes happened with different units in difference places).
    I have reworded this slightly, do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such forces Petreforce could" - force and Petreforce in a row seems repetitious - maybe swap force for opponents or something?
    I have also reworded thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was only one Boys anti-tank rifle per company, and one ML 3-inch mortar per Battalion. In comparison, a fully equipped division was to have 361 anti-tank rifles and 18 three-inch mortars" - can we compare apples to apples? I don't know how many companies were in a British infantry division at that time, and I figure I know more than the average reader
    I was trying to stick closely to the wording of the source. However, I have updated the article to provide a battalion comparison as suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for two and half" - don't know if this is a British/American thing, but I'd say "for two and a half"
    It was probably just a me thing lol, I have fixed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see casualty info is lacking, so I take it there's no idea of how many were KIA vs taken prisoner? Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the sources I consulted, none provided overall casualty information for the division nor really broke it down for the units they did provide it for.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your fixes look good to me; no worries on the casualty info, if the sources don't say there isn't anything to be done. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Parsecboy: Any supports? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (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/12th_(Eastern)_Infantry_Division&oldid=1031636223"