Wikipedia:Peer review/80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently overhauled the article - about a very obsucre Second World War British divsion with little written about it - from a stub, and would like feedback (comments, concerns, area to improve etc.). My intention is to progress to GA review soon. I am aware that there is currently one fact tag, which I added, but I aim to address that in the coming days when I get the chance. All comments and suggestions welcome. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments.

• As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Also: per WP:INTEXT, attribution is needed in the text, not just in the footnotes, for direct quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. In the next day or so I will integrate the quotes, or attribute were they are left.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments It's interesting to read accounts of second-line, but critically important, units such as this one. I have the following comments:

• Where was the (real) 80th Division located?
• "By 30 June 1944, these training divisions (the 48th, 76th, 77th Holding, and the 80th) had a combined total of 22,355 men between them. Of these men, only an estimated 1,100 were available to be used as replacements for 21st Army Group." - this and the following material is a bit unclear. It's earlier stated that soldiers only spent a short period of time (five weeks) with the training divisions before being posted on, so the wording that "by 30 June" seems confusing given that these divisions weren't intended to be holding units for combat personnel. I suspect that it would be better to present this as a point in time figure (eg, "On 30 June 1944..."). It would be interesting to know who the other 21,000 soldiers were: were they the instructors? (which might be about right for four divisions given that good quality military training is quite labour intensive).
• Do we know why the British decided to have a duplicate 80th Division as a deception formation? This seems a risky strategy given that if the Germans had known that the real 80th was a training formation (which they could have quite feasibly determined from POW interrogations or the like) it would have greatly undermined the whole deception campaign.
• "however historian Mary Kathryn Barbier – writing in 2006 – comments that "it is time to consider that the importance of the deception has been overrated." - can more be said about this, especially in the context of this particular part of the deception? (I tend to agree with it: the emphasis on deception, elite units, unusual weapons, etc in the British literature on WW2 can get pretty tiresome, especially as these topics often overshadow the much more important - and costly - work of the "main force" combat units) Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Nick. I shall do some digging to try and address your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

location:Okay, the only thing I have had time today to look at was the location of the 80th. I have had zero luck pinning down the location of the division, its brigades, or its battalions. It seems that if a battalion never left the UK, very little is written about it. Not to mention, very little has been written about the division. I have a lead, which I am going to ask on the Resource Exchange about (as I no longer have access to regimental histories). If that lead turns up nothing, I do have the location of the Western Command (for comparison's sake to the location of the fictional division, which was on the other side of the country): "Western Command included, very roughly, Wales and the western tier of English counties from the Seven to the Scottish border"(Holt, p. 186). The Imperial War Museum has the command covering " Command HQ was at Chester and its area included the whole of Wales and the bordering North West and North Midland counties" (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30071438). The Official History for the defense of the UK is not very helpful. Would this, failing an exact location of the 80th, suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really - that's a large chunk of the UK, and this division would likely have been concentrated in a few areas (quite possibly still-existing exercise areas?). While I can't suggest any specific sources whatsoever, the large (and often surprisingly good) literature written by amateur/enthusiast historians on WW2-era army camps, etc, might have something on this. It could be worth digging around www.naval-military-press.com or similar for leads. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not able to find anything on that website. However, some more digging around on the battalions found two websites (RS too) that state the two battalions in question where in separate locations. I have input this into the article. I would surmise from this, and a lack of other evidence to the contrary, that the division was only that in name and served as an administration center for the dispersed battalions that dealt out the training (as noted by other sources, it was only section to company level). The Shropshire museum somewhat states this, stating they alone provided over 4,000 men to their own regiment as well as the South Staffordshire Rgt. Obviously, i have not put these OR thoughts into the article nor have i provided the information on the numbers of men the KSLI trained, although i could enter that information in as a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deception:I have not been able to find anything on why the unit was duplicated. Of the few references I have found on the notional div, one believe it to be completely notional and having never existed, another mistakenly believes the division was retained on the OOB after it became the 38th division. That argument is discredited by a hoast of other reliable sources that show both divisions (38 and 80) existed at the same time. I honestly don't believe that line of thought should be added to the article. Further searches has found nothing, and for the moment I dont think I will be able to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I also checked Michael Howard's official history of strategic deception, but unfortunately he doesn't mention this "unit". Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to why the training formation was used: Roger Hesketh appears to explain the story, although I cannot get a page number. Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=qtX0FVrwnHcC&pg=PR27-IA2&dq=80th+division+training+deception&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lNwrVcKQBYWQsAXJiYPACA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=80th%20division%20training%20deception&f=false

Hesketh claims the division was already disbanded, or at least renumbered to the 38th (not supported by Joslen etc), and that for deception purposes it would receive the resources and equipment from the 38th in order to be raised to higher establishment so that it could join FUSAG and serve overseas.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick, I have made the changes suggested: information on why the division was used as a deception unit has been added, as well as an expansion on the effectiveness of FUSAG/Fortitude.

In regards to the 21,000 men who were not draftable. Hart comments that the majority were partially trained. He also notes that the instructors, who were illegible to be drafted, were a mix of fit, unfit, and "battle-fatigued". He also notes that 50-75 per cent of non-draftable infantry - on 30 June (which includes a host of other formations) - would eventually make their way to France as reinforcements for 21st Army Group. Other than this, he does not break down his figures on the makeup of the various training divisions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

First, I have to thank you for your work talking about one of the main divisions of the UK Army participating in World War II. The work is quite excellent. It gives an exceptional overview about the 80th division and its role in World War II. However, the work lacks from some important details that can be useful for this work. These details should be reviewed soon.

• Composition: A division is not very wide... You can cite its first composition and its losses within the two operations... This will give more details about the War and about how this division had succeeded to survive. You can give a full list of the leaders of the division in the existing template. You should also add the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom within this important work. These details can give to your work more trustworthiness.
• Battles: You can also involve how this division interfere in Battles and when it had been activated. You can give more details about the circumstances and the work of the division in order to give a better overview about the importance of this division in the war and how it helped to the amelioration of the situation of the UK Army in this war. You should give more details about that and use for that historical books, available reports, journals and books.
• Honours: You should include also if some members of the 80th division had received some important honours and medals after the war. You can also involve if this important division had received a special recognition for its work. You can also cite some historical samples of the 80th Division that are hosted by some museums and you can also cite the location of the 80th division and if they were hosted in castles and ships during the war. You can also cite the tools they used during the different battles.
• Artistic work: You can also cite if there are any artistic work done in order to commemorate some aspects of the division like battles and health conditions... This can involve romans, plays, films and books. By that, you can give a better overview about the reputation of the 80th Division just after the war and nowadays... You can also give a description about the overview of the 80th Division in these artistic works. You can involve an overview about the success of these works and their adaptation

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) No offense, but that looks like a copy and paste - with the article name changed - of your other reviews aimed at bumping up your wikicup score not to mention some of the comments highlight the fact you didn't read the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree - the above comments are obviously not relevant to this division, which was a training formation throughout its history (with a sideline as a deception unit). @Csisc: It seems to be really bad form to post a review like this. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for replying me. I think that the review I have done for your work was not clear. That is why I will explain more my comments. I had just proposed you to involve a part about the composition of the division. In this part, you have to involve the racial and regional repartition of soldiers and the number of victim soldiers and injured people from the division. I had also proposed that you add a part about the tools provided during the war to the 80th Division like the ship, the accomodation, the planes, the bombs... --Csisc (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You obviously still haven't read the article. You should be ashamed of yourself. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)