Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/British Army during World War II

British Army during World War II

This is a huge subject area and there must be lots missing, inaccurate etc but I would like to take this onto A Class so as always any and all comments gratefully received. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

• Well, from an initial look-through, there's work to be done, but it's in a reasonably good condition.
• The 'Armies' section made my eyes go funny after a few seconds; although they're needed, the descriptions are rather same-y and certainly need to be reworked into a more flowing format.

Subsections now added so hopefully it will prevent more damage to your eyes.

• The same goes for the 'Commanders' section. In fact, perhaps it might be more beneficial to get rid of thjose two sections and introduce the various commanders and formations as they appear through the article. It would certainly help the article flow better, and make more sense chronilogically.

Section now deleted and commanders added to the text where they enter (in fact apart from Ironsides they were already in)

• The 'Campaigns 1940' etc titles are technically accurate, but seem a tad bland and might benefit from a rethink - even just the addition of an 'of' might help things out.

I have changed this with Campaigns as the main headings with subsection headings 1940,1941 etc.

I have made this comment on the talk page but might as well bring it up here too, i feel that the wording and the subsections are a tad misleading. To me they give the impression that there was several campaigns fought, each named after their particular year. Is there not another word we can use to replace the word campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize this might not be the most helpful of details, so sorry. But all of the campaigns need a lot more detail; to see the entire Battle of France summed up in a small paragraph, for example, is much less than is needed.

Point taken I was trying to avoid writing the Battle of France article again, will revist this.

• There will also be a need for a great deal of analysis throughout the article, especially in terms of the Army's performance in France in 1940, North Africa and North-West Europe. Your 'bible' for this, so to speak, should be David French's Raising Churchill's Army. It is an exhaustive and rigorous academic text on the Army during the conflict, giving a chronological analysis as well as examining and critiquing weapons, officers and other ranks, battle tactics and so forth. It's a recommended text for all military history courses dealing with the British Army during that period at my old university, and deservedly so. French's other work on the British Army during the period should also be looked at, as should texts by Paddy Griffith. Skinny87 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review - I think there was a copy of Raising Churchill's Army in the Library --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06

• An accessible timeline in some sort of infobox is key, to link this article with the rest of the British army history articles. Buckshot06(prof) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the History of the British Army and Timeline of the British Army as part of the British Army template. Or do you mean something like this ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost exactly what I mean. A box with the 'British Army in the 1600s,' 'British Army in the 1700s,' 'British Army in the 1800s,' 'British Army in World War I,' and 'British Army in the Cold War,' articles, or what exists in their place at the moment. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be article I can add to the template then - will have a search later today --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here my attempt at the time line --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think you also need to check whether 2 NZ Division was really available for Operation Compass - you list one New Zealand brigade (the 4th, I think) as part of O'Connor's force. No other source I've seen includes the New Zealanders as part of the WDF and I believe they were acclimatising back in Egypt under control of HQ British Troops Egypt. Buckshot06(prof) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded and clarified in theatre but not involvd inCompass --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I think that the NZ troops and (7th Australian Division) were acclimatising/training and providing garrison forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm when 7th Australian arrived I have conflicting dates ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the time line, that's not what I meant. There is a British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, British Army during the Victorian Era, and British Army during World War I. Missing are the 1600s and 1700s. The small timeline articles all cover data in the main History of the British Army article and can be safely deleted (I can do it myself if you wish.) Buckshot06(prof) 05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This above is what I meant. Buckshot06(prof) 05:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

This article is indeed in pretty good shape. It's very comprehensive, well referenced and well written - great work. My suggestions for further development are:

• The article would benefit from more images. Diagrams of the key organisational structures would be invaluable.

I have asked Noclador to assist with unit line diagrams. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The section on the Army's organisational changes is fascinating, but may be over-long. I'd suggest that you split this (or at least the section on armoured units) into a separate article

Yes see where your coming from here - there also seems to be a bit of an edit war going on between two users so I will wait until that has been resolved. Interestedly their input has the makings of a decent stand alone article on British WWII Armoured Divisions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was only really a conflict over wording and not content, which we have both backed down from - but i still disagree with the parentheses within the section.

What are we looking to trim from this section so it is more streamlined? Most of the first two paragraphs and the last one? Although i would argue that the comments from French etc have to remain to provide historial anyalsis within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Much more coverage is needed of the recruitment and increasing integration of women into the Army during the war

• The 'Comparison of equipment' section is a bit simplistic and contains some mistakes. For instance, it's not the case that "German panzer and light divisions were equipped with the Panzer III and Panzer IV, which could out gun all British tanks." - Panzer IIs were a core part of the German armoured force until after the Battle of France and British tanks performed reasonably well in the western desert. The section also ignores the importance of logistics.

Added some text to try and make this clearer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Australian 6th Division is missing from the list of forces under O'Connor's command in 1941 (it replaced the 4th Indian Division when that was withdrawn after the start of his offensive)  Done

• The article struggles a bit with the integrated nature of the Commonwealth force; I don't think that it's correct to refer to the forces sent to Greece and Crete as being 'British' given that Australian and NZ troops made up a high proportion of their strength and actually commanded the combat forces (the Australian I Corps - renamed the ANZAC Corps - was the field command in Greece and Crete was under the command of the NZ Division). I'd suggest that the term 'Commonwealth' be used to describe such mixed forces. Stating that the non-British units in Hong Kong (which made up the majority of the force there) only 'assisted' the two British battalions also seems wrong.  Done

• • I disagree. We should use the terms in use at the time, which were 'British,' while potentially explicitly noting that that may be a bit misleading, and saying why. Let's not create wiki-inventions, but stick to historical usages. Buckshot06(prof) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest i think this is the wrong approach to take; its not a-historical to note that the force sent to Greece was Commonwealth or Allied etc because to use the term "British" would be historically inaccurate. Writing in the modern era we are not tied to wording of the past and i have seen few historians write in modern works; there are plenty of examples where this idea would be found to be rather offensive.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage of the campaigns of 1944, which were the Army's largest (and arguably most important) of the war seems a bit short compared to the coverage of earlier years.

• The article doesn't cover the British involvement in Greece in 1944/45, which included a fairly large Army force

• There's also no coverage of the Army's deployments and campaigns in the months after the war. These included a corps-level amphibious operation in Malaya (which had been scheduled to take place in September anyway had the Japanese not surrendered), fighting in Indonesia and Vietnam, formation of occupation forces for Germany and Japan, etc. Coverage of the Army's demobilisation might also be interesting.

• More coverage of the Army's manpower problems in the last years of the war might be warranted; this imposed a significant limitation on how combat units could be used and contributed greatly to Britain's declining influence. The associated war weariness of many formations might also be worth noting - the 7th Armoured Division's mixed performance in Normandy is often attributed to it's men feeling that they'd done their part, and the men of the 8th and 14th Armies were pretty sour about being ignored in 1944/45 (some sources argue that this played an important role in the Labour Party's victory in the 1945 general election).

• It would be interesting if there was coverage of how British doctrine changed over the war. While the article discusses the poor state of the Army in 1939, the massive improvements which had been made by 1945 are never really explicitly covered. The emphasis on cooperation with the other services was particularly important in explaining the Army's greatly improved performance in the later years of the war, but isn't really covered here. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW - Thanks for the review this will give me some work to do --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101

I'm not certain if these comments have been mentioned above, but I think there are a number of areas that could improve with attention.

• The armies and army groups would be better on a sub-page and the information summarised, probably under "Organisation".
• Take care with selection of images. There are a lot available, so only go for those that are good quality and clearly illustrate or highlight a point. At the moment they look like they've been added as an afterthought and get a bit messy.
• Far more required on casualties - by campaign, prisoners of war, number and treatment of wounded.

  I believe i have the figures for the NW Europe and the Italian campaign however the others i.e. East and North Africa, the Middle East and Asia may be very hard to come by. However i will add in the stuff i have.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Something is needed on support services - logistical, engineering and medical support was absolutely essential during the war but there is nothing specific on any of them that I can see in this article.

Just a few quick thoughts, but these seem like important areas for expansion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]