Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/New Zealand Division

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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Division[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

New Zealand Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the necessary criteria. I have worked on the bulk of the article (on my userpages) for well over a year as an on-and-off project for me and since adding my additions to the artilce, it has been through a thorough GA review which has taken the rough edges off it. I like to think it is a major step forward in improving Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand's contribution to WWI. My thanks, firstly to all those chipped in and fixed my typos etc over the past week or two since I incorporated my expansions into the article, and secondly to those who take on the task of reviewing. I am looking forward to your feedback. Zawed (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see this article developed to such a high standard. I have the following comments:

  • "the New Zealand Division, with its 20,000 personnel, was the strongest infantry division on the Western Front" - I'm not sure if this is accurate: according to [1] (page 122) and [2] the US Army divisions had over 28,000 men at full strength by November 1918!
  •  Done I have revised the lead, Hawkeye7 has made a similar comment below. Zawed (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that "the New Zealand Division was one of the strongest infantry divisions on the Western Front" still seems to be too strong: the US Army had several dozen divisions in France by the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fact is cited and I could add more if needed (although all would be attributed NZ historians so maybe there is a bias there!). If it will progress things, I could amend that statement to refer to being one of the strongest Dominion divisions? Zawed (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible (there seems to be a low awareness of the US contribution among Commonwealth historians, presumably as it mainly operated with the French Army) Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have done, both in lead and body of article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says that the NZ and Australian Division was "disbanded", but the 'Formation' section says that this unit was renamed when its Australian components were transferred out: which is correct?
  •  Done I have revised the lead. Zawed (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tanks suffered reliability problems" - could this be tweaked to "the tanks suffered mechanical problems"?
  • "The Battle of Poelcappelle proved to be a failure, with no significant advancement of the frontlines" - a bit of context or lead in would be beneficial here
  •  Done Have expanded a little more on the battle; how does it read now?
  • Adding an order of battle box to the 'Winter 1917–18' setting out the division's final organisation would be helpful
  •  Done Have done, also expanded the earlier OOB bearing in mind Hawkeye7's comments below. Zawed (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the 'entrenching' battalions holding units for reinforcement personnel, or did members of the battalions remain permanently in them? Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Yes, holding units for reinforcements. Have clarified this. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Us Aussies just love New Zealand. That's not the comment though.

Will you still love us after the Cricket World Cup though? Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That's what New Zealand is for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. These two formations formed the main body of the NZEF and, together with the Australian 4th Infantry Brigade, were the basis of the New Zealand and Australian Division Actually, there was another brigade, the Australian 1st Light Horse Brigade.
     Done Yes, a booboo on my part, overlooked them. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When the NZ&A Division was broken up, the units went to form three new divisions: the Australian 4th Division, the New Zealand Division, and the Anzac Mounted Division. The mounted division included the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the NZMR. So note 1 is wrong.
     Done Indeed, as part of my oversight above. Have fixed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Along with the Australian 2nd Division, the New Zealand Division was to form part of I ANZAC Corps, under the command of Godley Actually, I Anzac Corps also included the 1st Division.
     Done Yep, another oversight. Fixed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A number of facilities established in Egypt for New Zealand personnel were transferred to England. Yes, but this belongs in the article on the NZEF; the base units were never part of the NZ Division
     Done Fair enough, have removed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Armentieres. Yeah, the problem was that based on experience at Gallipoli, the front line was initially held too strongly.
  6. in September 1916 the New Zealand Division was attached to XV Corps Should be assigned.
     Done
  7. The artillery brigades were reduced to three, one of which came under the direct control of II ANZAC Corps To economise on battery commanders, the size of the batteries was increased from 4 to 6 guns. A brigade was broken up to facilitate this
     Done Have expanded a little here
  8. Order of Battle: There were three NZ field ambulances, one per brigade. Also three engineer field companies and a signals company. Each brigade had a machine gun company and a light trench mortar battery. In 1917, the division acquired another machine gun company (I think from the 4th Brigade), and the division artillery two medium and one heavy trench mortar battery. In 1918, the four machine gun companies were combined into a battalion. There were also four Army Service Corps companies RNZASC. And the Otago Mounted Rifles left the division before the move to France. With B and D Squadrons of the 4th Light Horse it formed the II Anzac Corps Mounted Regiment. This became the XXII Corps Mounted Regiment in 1918.
     Done I will expand the OOB and add one for 1918 as well, as per NickD's suggestion above. PS My sources (Stewart) indicate the Otagos did go to France with the division and didn't join the mounted regiment (Stewart says 1st ANZAC not II ANZAC, initially at least) until then. I have left them in the OOB but added some clarifying text to the body to explain that they were soon gone. Zawed (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally, each infantry division had a mounted regiment, so the 4th Light Horse was assigned to the 1st Division when it was formed in 1914. Those for the new Australian divisions formed in 1916 were obtained by breaking up the 4th Light Horse Brigade. So we had: 1st Division - 4th LHR; 2nd Division - 13th LHR; 3rd Division - 14th LHR (raised in Australia); 4th Division - 11th LHR; 5th Division - 12th LHR; NZ Division - Otago Regt. But before they left for France, the establishment was changed. The BEF had found mounted troops of limited use in France, so each division was to have only one squadron. Therefore, the arrangement became: So we had: 1st Division - one squadron of 4th LHR; 2nd Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; 3rd Division - one squadron of 14th LHR (raised in Australia); 4th Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; 5th Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; NZ Division - one squadron of Otago Regt. So only one squadron of the Otago went to France. On arrival in France, it was found that the establishment had changed again; instead of each division having a squadron, each corps had a regiment. Since I Anzac Corps consisted of the three "old" divisions (the 1st, 2nd and NZ) at this time, I Anzac Mounted Regiment consisted of one squadron each of the 4th and 13th LHR, and the Otago. (Other changes at this time were the addition of the TM batteries, and reorganising the artillery so as to break up the howitzer brigade, giving each brigade three gun and one howitzer battery) (Bean III:91) When II Anzac Corps arrived, it brought with it the rest of the mounted troops, and the mounted organisation was fixed up. The I Anzac Mounted Regiment was broken up, and the 13th Light Horse became the I Anzac Mounted Regiment. When the Australian Corps was formed in 1917, it was transferred to it, but was henceforth only known as the 13th Light Horse. The Otago squadron joined the II Anzac Mounted Regiment; along with B and D Squadrons and the machine gun and headquarters troops of the 4th Light Horse it formed the II Anzac Corps Mounted Regiment. This became the XXII Corps Mounted Regiment in 1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The New Zealanders would follow in due course but in the meantime, General Douglas Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), Sir Douglas Haig
     Done
  10. Why is note 6 in a footnote? Move it into the main text.
     Done
  11. On 1 November 1917, the Australian contingent of II ANZAC Corps was transferred to the newly formed Australian Corps, Well, the 3rd Division was transferred, but the two light horse squadrons and the cyclists companies remained. (And should there be a hyphen in there?)
     Done Clarified that it was the 3rd Division being transferred.
  12. As this left the New Zealand Division as the sole representative of the ANZAC divisions in the corps, this warranted its renaming to XXI Corps. No, it was XXII Corps.
     Done Typo, the wl went to the right place though. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A popular commander, many in the division viewed this as a punishment for his refusal to carry on with the 12 October attack at Passchendaele. Possibly, but nobody else was removed over that one, and it was in accord with GHQ policy of manning the division with New Zealanders.
     Done Have revised to emphasise that this was a rumour. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. a divisional machine gun battalion was formed to replace the previously independent companies attached to each brigade Suggest a divisional machine gun battalion was formed from the companies belonging to each brigade
     Done
  15. I might add here that in other armies on the Western Front, the entrenching battalions were just reinforcements that were kept near the front where they could become accustomed to the conditions before joining their battalions.
     Done NickD has also queried this so have revised a little to make this clear.
  16. The ready availability of reinforcements prevented it from suffering the reduction in the number of battalions that affected the British and Australian divisions as their manpower reserves dried up. That was because New Zealand had conscription, right? (Mind you, when we asked New Zealand to reform the Otago Mounted Rifles to provide the third regiment of the 5th Light Horse Brigade, they baulked, so the reinforcement situation seems to have still been tight.)
     Done Added a short sentence about conscription.
  17. At this stage of the war, the New Zealand Division was the strongest infantry division on the Western Front. Nick mentions the Americans. The Canadian divisions were also stronger. Also, TO strength was over 15,000.
     Done Nick raised this as well so have revised slightly to be one of the strongest. That said, the main source here (Harper) does say the NZ Division was the strongest and mentions the Canadian divisions having around 10,000 men on average. Zawed (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Demobilisation began towards the end of December, with those who had enlisted in 1914 or 1915 leaving for New Zealand. No Anzac leave in the New Zealand Army?
    Sorry, don't get you here? Or do you mean furlough? Zawed (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1918 the AIF instituted Anzac Leave. Those who had enlisted in 1914 were sent home on furlough. This was extended to those who had enlisted in the first half of 1915 in late 1918. Only a few officers returned, because the war ended before their leave was up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha; unlike the 2NZEF in WWII, there doesn't seem to have been a furlough system in place for WWI. Zawed (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. Say hi to Glyn Harper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nick-D and Hawkeye7: Gents, thanks for the feedback which I have incorporated into the article. Hawkeye7, there are a couple of comments above for you (I figured out how to better format my responses without buggering up the numbering of your comments). Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport - an excellent article in my opinion and great to see an important NZ First World War topic dealt with to this standard during the centenary.
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).  Done
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • Some minor inconsistency in presentation, consider "Messines Sector" vs "Ypres sector" (caps)  Done
    • " which was its most costliest day of the war" - seems a little tautological to say "most costliest", consider either "mostly costly" or just "costliest".  Done
    • "...the commander of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force in Egypt, Sir Archibald Murray, proposed..." shouldn't this be "Lieutenant General Sir Archibald Murray..."? His rank should be included at first use per WP:SURNAME  Done
    • "and seized it within an hour of going over the top..." - language here seems a little informal (i.e. "going over the top"), perhaps reword?  Done
    • Prose here is a little repeative and could be tightened: "In the weeks leading up to the battle, the division repeatedly practiced the tactics it would employ during the battle." Consider instead: "In the weeks leading up to the battle, the division repeatedly practiced the tactics it would employ during its conduct." Or something along those lines.  Done
    • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of timings, consider "6:00 am" vs "8:10am" (i.e. spaced and unspaced) - MOS:TIME says it should be spaced.  Done
    • some inconsistency re "machine-gun" vs "machine gun"  Done
    • Terminology nitpick here: "...New Zealand Pioneer Battalion divested itself of its squadron of Otago Mounted Rifles to leave, apart from its senior officers, a formation with solely Māori personnel." Specifically use of the term "formation" - technically a formation is brigade size or greater, "unit" would be more appropriate for a battalion.  Done Didn't know this.
    • I made a few edits as well, pls see here [3]. Pls check I didn't screw anything up. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anotherclown, I have made changes in response to your comments and your edits looked fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to review this one! Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • I'm down to Battle of Messines so far. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, British dictionaries still say "front line" (noun), but "frontline" is acceptable in AmEng and is gaining ground. You use both spellings in this article, about equally.
  • "were warned to avoid being captured in case they were eaten": Did you mean "because they might be eaten"?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dank, I have revised frontlines to front line as the rest of the article is British English. Also revised the section about being eaten. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. It's a readable and detailed account. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (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/New_Zealand_Division&oldid=643889477"