Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

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) 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

The 1st Armoured Division, not to be confused with the similarly named formation from the 1970s through to the 2010s, was formed in November 1937 as the Mobile Division. It was sent to France after the German offensive began, fought a couple of engagements before returning to the UK having lost practically all its tanks. After a period defending the UK, it was dispatched to North Africa where it fought in most of the major armoured battles from Gazala to the Second Battle of El Alamein. It was then on to Tunisia before a final campaign in Italy. After fighting through the Gothic Line, the division was broken-up to provide reinforcements for others. The division number was briefly reused (1946–47) in the post-war period when the 6th Armoured Division was renamed. The guild of copyedits have given the article the once over and it has just recently passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Congratulation on tackling this one. After the 7th Armoured Division, it was probably the most significant British division of the war. The article is very good. Some comments:

Suggest moving fn 14 to the end of the previous sentence.
Footnote moved EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" equipped with 78 light cruisers, 45 heavy cruisers" What tanks were these exactly?
Joslen provides the totals of what were supposed to be in the division but does not state what specific models were to be used. This was partially why I added a note on the end of that section to provide some documented examples of what a light and heavy was, in addition to such definitions (that seem to be fuzzy at best, depending on the source you look at) being requested previously. Crow notes the arrival of A9s and A13s (Cruiser MK III) in late 38 but does not state numbers or what role either would play compared to the light/heavy definition. Fletcher does highlight the A9 as a light cruiser, however. Newbold, for example, lumps his cruiser figures in a column labeled "Cruiser Tanks: A9, A10, and A13" (the latter being a mixture of the MK III and MK IV by that point?). Long winded way of saying, sorry I don't know at the moment :-) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lieutenant-General Claude Auchinleck" should be "General Sir Claude Auchinleck"
Updated on both points! Double checked the source and even the Gazette, not sure why I went with Lt-Gen over the higher rank but corrected now. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"to return it to strength" I wouldn't say this, as it was still under-strength. It replaced the 168th Brigade, which was disbanded. Similarly, I would drop "to bring them up to strength"
Updated to reflect this point EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Kingdom of Italy". I really hate this. It is just Italy. The change of the form of government does not change the country.
Fair point, and descriptive dropped EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Trieste, which was then within the Kingdom of Italy," No, it still is. It became part of Italy after World War I, and has been part ever since.
I think I had confused the city and the territory (portions of which went to Yugoslavia). I double checked the source and they don't mention anything to suggest the division being in part that was transferred, so have updated per your point. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"maintained its insignia of a mailed fist" This may not be clear to the reader. Suggest something like "Maintained the 6th Armoured Division's insignia of a mailed fist"
Updated per your recommendation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typos: "begn", "Inglish",
Gah!!! Fixed! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why Guy Lizard in in the See Also. And should Norman Force be mentioned in the body?
It could probably be removed (potentially name dropped in the OOB article's see also section instead?). Its article mentions that the division's HQ was outfitted with them during the Battle of France (the wording choice implies they were the sole unit to be at the time) so seemed like an interesting additional article to look at but nothing something to be shoehorned into this article's text. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed Norman Force! I have added mention in the article text now. Ellis does not have much to say on the subject, but does verify the division being under is command (all forces previously under Tenth Army). Seems its sole purpose was to have British forces under a British command to direct the evacuation, so I have basically just highlighted this fact and made little change to what was already in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bell (1997) is not used - remove or move to Further reading.
Originally used to provide some background context, which was subsequently reworked and dropped. Removed, as noted, it is no longer in use. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link War Office, Steven J. Zaloga
Links added EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"doctrine" is linked before it is used.
Link moved EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not too fond of the map of the Gothic line. It is in error: somebody changed the US IV Corps to the IX Corps (which was in the Pacific).
Nice catch! I have replaced the newer version of the map with the old one. I can kind of see how this occurred when comparing both versions. Not sure if it would be appropriate, but hopefully an editor could fix it at some point. I have also added a note on the common's description page to highlight the difference between the two versions. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to action all your points and have left comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Zawed

This looks to be in pretty good order. Some nitpicks:

Background section

They argued that light tanks better-replaced...: should the hyphen there? Perhaps "were a better replacement for"
Updated per your suggestion EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rhinoceros, being the most-heavily-armoured animal, was chosen as the divisional insignia.: the cite for this doesn't support the "most-heavily-armoured animal", I would also suggest rephrasing it to be less definitive regarding being "the most-heavily-armoured". No doubt it is heavily armoured but not sure if it is the most so
Once you are on the IWM page, make sure to click "show more" under physical description. It then provides a history section to provide context, the first line of that covers the above part.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a dumbass, sorry I missed that! Zawed (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He argued the assigned infantry was not...: was should be were I think, as infantry is being used in a plural sense here?
Updated per your recommendation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In April 1939, the division was renamed the 1st Armoured Division.[8]: suggest moving this sentence to midway in the following paragraph as it is a little out of place chronologically.
I have reordered this part per your comment EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Vickers Medium Mark II in the image of same (the previous image has the name of the tank linked)
Link added EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home service and Battle of France

the 1st Heavy (formally the Tank Brigade)...: formally or formerly? I suspect the latter, particularly given the 1st is mentioned later in this paragraph
Correct and updated! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the Allied forces advanced to meet the German invasion,...: suggest deleting the "German" here, since the "main German attack" is mentioned later in the sentence
Updated per your recommendation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cite 10 is used at the end of the sentence that starts The Division was then placed in reserve in Surrey but I don't see anything relevant at that webpage for what is contained in this sentence; perhaps another IWM webpage was intended?

This comment RE cite 10 may not be relevant in light of the response above. Zawed (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same situation :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial desert fighting

By the end of that year's December, Operation Crusader...: seems oddly phrased to me, perhaps "By the end of the year, Operation Crusader..."
Updated per your recomendation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First El Alamein

No issues identified

Italian campaign

A more-successful attack...: don't think the hyphen should be used here
Removed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar

No issues identified

See also

To me, the Guy Lizard link seems quite tangential to include here
Both you and Hawkeye have both made the same kind of comment, so I have removed it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me at this stage. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments, I will attempt to get to them in the next day or so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, I have updated the article per your recommendations. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good, happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

I'll try to get to this over the next week or so. Hog Farm _Talk 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"argued for a formation of cavalry regiments," - is this horse cavalry, or just a term used for light mechanized infantry or something?
"repelled further German attacks and 44 took prisoners" - unclear what this means?
The lead mentions Gatehouse being wounded, but not seeing that in the body?
This came about from a dispute on how the lede should read, while it was undergoing copyediting. It was copied from the GOC list. I have removed both those points from this article's lead. However, I did add in to the main text that Gatehouse was wounded and a replaced by a brigadier who led the division through the final phase of the First El Alamein fighting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It had been expected to seize crossings over the Marano river but it had not been able to do so" - is "It" the 46th or the 1st Armoured?
I have double checked the source and made a couple of tweaks: it was hoped the 46th would cross the river first, but they were not able to do so and the 1st advanced by themselves.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really only have one major questions. Should the brief renaming of the 6th Armoured in '46-'47 actually be attributed to this unit? It almost seems to me like it's actually just a continuation of the lineage of the 6th.
Lineage has been a bit of a contentious point with this formation name. Although the discussion has not touched on this point as of yet. With that said, I agree. For example, Lord and Watson seem to suggest the 6th Armoured Division was a bit of a re-emerging of the 6th Infantry Division (that had been renamed the 70th). They list the 6th Armoured Divisional Signal Regiment as being part of the lineage of the 6th Divisional Telegraph Company. With all that said, I have removed the reference to the 6th/1st from the lead and infobox and have renamed the last section to "Post war formations with the same name" (open to suggestions for wording changes) so that they can at least be briefly spoken about. Does

Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EnigmaMcmxc: - sorry about the delay in replying; I apparently didn't have this watchlisted and missed your response. The "repelled further German attacks and 44 took prisoners" is still outstanding, but I anticipate supporting once that is resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 17:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Not sure how I have repeatedly missed this one, but now taken care of!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

File:British 1st Armoured Division WW2 2nd pattern.svg, File:1st Armoured Div.svg, File:Alamein1st1942 07.svg - original works -okay

File:IWM-ARMY-TRAINING-6-6-light-tank-MkVIA-c1937.jpg, File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H233.jpg, File:The British Army in France 1940 F4594.jpg, File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H12382.jpg, File:Gen H Lumsden circa 1943 IWM.jpg, File:The British Army in North Africa 1942 E18379.jpg - crown copyright images - copyright expired - okay

File:16May-21May1940-Fall Gelb.svg, File:Map of siege of Tobruk 1942.jpg, File:Ww2 europe map italy june until december 1944.jpg - US government images - PD - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Sources are of good quality.
The last three entries in the References are out of alphabetical order
Gah! Updated :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the Further reading should be smaller than the References
Left over use of the refbegin and refend tags. I have removed them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Further Reading reference is incorrect. It should be: Evans, R. "The 1st Armoured Division in France." Army Quarterly, Volume 45, November 1942, pp. 55-69; Volume 46, February 1943, pp. 179-187; Volume 47, May 1943, pp. 46-54.
Thank you for the additional details, I have replaced the sole reference with the details for all three volumes per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks: 9, 38, 83, 87 - okay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews and comments. I have attempted to address the areas you outlined that needed work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 1 May 2023 (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.