Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War

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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another list article for review, this one covering the various British armoured, armoured reconnaissance, cavalry, motor machine gun, and tank brigades, as well as the armoured division's support groups. Each section contains an explanation on the brigade type as well as providing a list. There is also a background section to provide a bit of a general overview. The article has also had the once over by the GoCE. I look forward to everyone's comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Another fine list. I always liked OrBats.

• Can't say I'm fond of the article title

  Yeah, I am in agreement on that. I couldn't settle on what would be better alternative myself. Something like 'armoured brigades' didnt seem quite right considering the cavalry and support groups or the whole armoured/tank definition, at least its better than "Joslen, Part II"! Any suggestions on this would be more than welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: lower-case Corps, Tank Brigades.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• The lead and the image at the top mention that brigades were commanded by brigadiers, but this isn't in body of the article, and therefore is unsourced.

  Now referenced inside the body of the articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would like the lead to mention one other difference between armoured brigades and tank brigades: the former, intended to operate independently, incorporated an infantry battalion, whereas the tank brigade did not. Also: the motorised infantry battalion is conspicuously missing from the "armoured" section.

  I may have gone a little overboard with examples, but now added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article covers the debate within the British Army about the role of the tank fairly well, but I would mention Monty's advocacy of the universal tank that could perform the roles of both cruiser and infantry tank.

  I have added some material in on thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "After the implication of lend-Lease, American tanks arrived." I don't think "implication" is the correct word here.

  It was not, updated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• "By mid-1944, the majority of armoured brigades were equipped with the American M4 Sherman medium tank, as a result of British cruiser production being unable to meet the need of the Royal Armoured Corps." I would have taken the story further. In 1944 the Americans suggested that British tank production cease and the British Army adopt American tanks. However, by late 1944, the American Army was desperately short of tanks, while the British Army had 1,900 Shermans in reserve, and Lend-Lease shipments ceased. This prompted a switch back to British tanks, with the 11th Armoured Division being re-equipped with Comet tanks.

  I wasnt aware of that being the reason behind the 11th getting the Comets. I'll check out Ellis and the 11th Arm Div history to see if they mention this, and will add it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it was the sole reason for the switch, or that sourcing tanks entirely from the US was seriously considered in the UK. The real problem is that your wording makes it ambiguous as to whether "the need of the Royal Armoured Corps" refers to the quantity or quality of British tanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Re-reviewing Buckley, it was both the quantity and the quality. I have updated this article to reflect that, as well as to discuss the introduction of the Comet and the various issues surrounding the supply of American tanks in 1944-45. I was not able to find anything that suggested Comets were to fully replace Shermans, or the 11th Arm was selected to cut down on the of American tanks etc. Although, it did all seem to happen around the same time. Any further feedback to better refine the additions?

• "directly under the command of the divisional headquarters" There's a bit of confusion about "divisional control". It doesn't mean under division HQ; there was a divisional artillery HQ. Also: can't find the text that supports this in French, pp. 224-225. Please check.

  It looks like I sourced a large chunk of this to Joslen (the increase in arty and inf). I have also reworded to follow French a bit more clear. Unless I have misread, post-Crusader the lessons learnt were the need for more arty support and battles being won in conjunction with inf (pretty crappy implementation of those lessons though).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think the text should mention the specialised armoured brigades.

  I have added in some info about themEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "as the others had been used as a pool from which to draw supplies for other formations based in the Middle East" Supplies? Like food, fuel and ammunition?

  Updated, the source was referencing the equipment mostly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• 2nd Armoured Brigade: Was the armoured brigade of the 1st Armoured Division in Tunisia and Italy, became independent when that division was disbanded in October 1944.

  I wasn't sure if I should what division each of the brigades were part of, or the prominent division they were associated with the most. I will add these suggestions.

• 3rd Armoured Brigade: part of the 2nd Armoured Division
• 4th Armoured Brigade: Was one of the original armoured brigades of the 7th Armoured Division, became an independent brigade in 1943
• 5th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the Guards Armoured Division
• 6th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the Guards Armoured Division, then became a tank brigade
• 7th Armoured Brigade: Was one of the original armoured brigades of the 7th Armoured Division, became an independent brigade in 1942
• 22nd Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 7th Armoured Division
• 23rd Armoured Brigade: Add Operation Manna
• 26th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 6th Armoured Division
• 29th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 11th Armoured Division
• 30th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 79th Armoured Division
• 3rd Motor Machine Gun Brigade: was redesignated the 28th Armoured Brigade, not the 26th

  Thank you for that typo catch!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I have gone in and added the above mentioned pointsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I have left a couple of quick responses above, and will get cracking shortly on the suggested changes and additional talking points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Still working on this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it took me a while, but I believe I have ticked off all points highlighted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Here Brigadier Arthur Willison, the commanding officer of" --> "Here Brigadier Arthur Willison, the commander of"? (I haven't come across the term commanding officer for a formation, usually (these days at least) it is commander. Thoughts?)

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "had identified four tank types they required" --> I feel this is missing a "that"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Tank doctrine focused on infantry" --> "British tank doctrine focused on infantry"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "by Cruiser tank-equipped": decaps

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• -ise v. -ize consistency is an issue: I don't mind either way, but please standardise

  All now "ise"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "redesignated as armour brigades" --> "redesignated as armoured brigades"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• suggest splitting the paragraph beginning "In 1943, United States Lieutenant General Brehon B. Somervell" as it is very long compared to the preceeding paragraphs

  I have made a split, hopefully a good one ;) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• 8th Division (Syria) redlink -- as with the other article I am not sure about this title -- I think it will get confused with the Syrian Army's current 8th Armoured Division. Is there a different title that could be used?

  Per Joslen, that was the official title. However, in the blurb on that page he refers to the formation as just the 8th Division. I have updated the the redlink to direct to the 8th Div article, and dropped the Syria reference. Ill update the 8th Div article to reflect that was the name when the "division" was reformed, as it did not previously mention it. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Following the Dunkirk evacuation during the end of May and the beginning of June 1940, the British Army had retreated from mainland Europe following": reword to avoid "following" twice

  Dropped the Dunkirk part as it is least relevantEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The brigade was formed when the 2nd Armoured Reconnaissance Brigade was redesignated" --> this is a redlink but shouldn't it point to the same link as in the Armoured Reconnaissance section?

  The piped link was missing, and I have fixed this.

• "The number of the group" --> "The numerical designation of the group"?

  Updated per your recomendation

• "two motorised infantry battalions, artillery, anti-tank, and light anti-aircraft guns" --> "two motorised infantry battalions, as well as artillery, anti-tank, and light anti-aircraft guns"

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The US Army, lacked substantial reserves" --> "The US Army, lacking substantial reserves"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "was rendered the British order meaningless" --> "was rendered the British order meaningless"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Just quickly dropping by to state I will tackle the remaining issue highlighted by Hawkeye7 and the ones brought up by AustralianRupert soon. Might be a few days, however.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address all points you have raised.

  • G'day, I have added my support above. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This is very interesting article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "During the Second World War, the brigade was the lowest formation within the military hierarchy" - I don't think that this is correct. Even if 'formation' has a special meaning here (which needs to be clarified if so), the Commonwealth armies often used battalion groups independently.
• More broadly, the first sentence should define what a 'mobile' brigade is.

  Edits have been made to try and address these two points (further cut-down than the suggestion I made to you previously)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• "The army also formed eight support groups, raised three brigades of cavalry, formed three brigades equipped with armoured cars and created two brigades aimed at grouping divisional cavalry regiments." - delete 'raised', the second 'formed' and 'created'.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Were the 8th and 9th Armoured Brigades independent formations?

  Yes and no. I have added some additional info to the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• " The regular army divisions were unique compared to their TA counterpart" - 'unique' isn't the right word here if there were several such units. Something like 'The regular army divisions' structures differed from their TA counterparts...' might work better.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why was the armoured reconnaissance brigade concept dropped? The equivalent American mechanised cavalry groups seem to have been successful in 1944-45 (albeit lacking in firepower and infantry at times). I presume that the British Army preferred to allocate its more limited resources to the recon units of the armoured and infantry divisions.

  I have not been able to find a straight answer. The units assigned to the Arm Recon Bdes became armoured car formations on their return to the UK, due to a lack of tanks. By the end of 1940, they had all been reequipped with cruisers. French, for example, notes that lessons learnt included a slight reorganization of the armoured divisions and what would seem a bit of a falling out with light tanks. Recon units were then established for the infantry, and armoured car units assigned to armoured divisions (later reassigned to the corps). Due to a lack of tanks, regiments were still being outfitted with light tanks in lieu of cruisers but that declined as the war progressed (with the exception of the M3). It kind of looks like they found something else that works, and went with it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1942, the British Army experimented with the format of their infantry divisions. Several were converted into "mixed divisions", which saw the removal of one infantry brigade that was replaced with a tank brigade. The concept was deemed unsuccessful and was abandoned the following year" - it could be noted that the the 2nd NZ Division used this structure successfully.

  I have added a note to that effectEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps note how the tank (and armoured?) brigades were used - am I right in thinking that one brigade was often allocated to each infantry division? (for instance, in Normandy) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at how Joslen details it, these brigades spent the majority of their time assigned to a corps, army, or army group command. For example, the 6th Guards are shown as being assigned directly to the 21st Army Group and Second Army for the majority of the Normandy campaign; then assigned to the 15th Scottish for a couple of weeks, then the 3rd Infantry for a few days before being reassigned to a corps. The 31st Brigade is shown as moving from army to corps asset, then being assigned to the 15th Scottish for a month (starting with Operation Epsom), before going back to various corps. Likewise, the 33rd Arm Bde, is shown attached to the 7th Arm for a few weeks and then reallocated to XXX Corps, 2nd Army, I Corps, then onto 3rd Infantry for a few days etc. To the best of my knowledge, the independent formations all did this: assigned on an as needed basis, then reallocated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all, and have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Not a lot to say about this, nice work.

• To be picky, caption: "An example of artillery being moved through the desert, one of the roles of the support group." This reads as if one of the roles of support groups was to move artillery through the desert. Perhaps tweak the phrasing?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• All images are PD, from the IWM collection. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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.