Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone a successful GAN and has had some incremental improvements through that process. It was the sister division of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (an article which is now FA). In the confusion and desperation that ruled the Balkans in late 1944 and 1945, this division never reached more than brigade size, but elements of it fought the Red Army in southern Hungary in late 1944. It was disbanded when its Bosnian Muslim members mutinied, realising that their German sponsors would leave them to the tender mercies of the Yugoslav Partisans and Russians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an excellent example of how to write an article on a short-lived unit: great work. I have the following comments:
 * "the division never reached full divisional strength and never saw action as a formation" - repetition of 'and never'
 * "did fight briefly" - 'fought briefly' lets you trim an unnecessary word
 * The material starting with "On 28 May 1944" needs a reference
 * "A small number of reliable Bosnians from the division were used as replacements in the 13th SS Division, and the division was formally dissolved on 31 October 1944" - this is a little bit confusing: I'd suggest replacing the final use of 'the division' with 'the 23rd SS Division' or similar
 * The order of battle only identifies combat units - did this division not have any logistics, signals, or other units which reported to the divisional HQ? Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick, I think I might be starting to get the hang of unit articles. All done except the divisional combat support and CSS units. Williamson doesn't provide a list (and neither does Ailsby per ) and although there are books that provide a full list, I'm not comfortable using them. They are mostly Stackpole Books, like, and while the information about Kama looks ok and conforms with other reliable sources, I've just steered clear of it at this stage. It is unlikely many of the CS and CSS units would have been properly formed given the time available and lack of manpower. I expect they did their best to make up the mountain regiments and guns to get some combat power together quickly rather than bother too much with the tail end. Do you think I might use the Pencz book (just to expand the ORBAT)? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be an OK source for the order of battle given that it's not open to any interpretation. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. ORBAT expanded using Pencz.

Support My comments are all addressed. Sorry again for not following up on this sooner. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for reviewing! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Support
 * About the only thing that I could ask for, and it may not be available, would be detailed info as to which battalions were actually formed, even just for training.
 * No joy on this one, unfortunately, but see below for the strength state in September 1944. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And are more detailed strength figures actually available? It's pretty clear from what you have provided that it never approached the 12,000-odd men of its TO&E, but it would be nice to know how many men were on strength, even if untrained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point Sturm. I neglected to check Pencz when Nick and I discussed using him for the ORBAT. He provides a strength report figure of 10 Sep 44 of 3,793. I've added it to the body.
 * Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.