Talk:Australian Army during World War II

A couple of minor observations

G'day, as I've been going through the article looking for minor issues, I've noticed a couple of inconsistencies that I wanted to clarify before changing:

• the article uses terms like First World War and Second World War, but the article is titled in "World War II";
• the presentation of infantry battalions/brigades is inconsistent: in some places it is "xth Battalion", but in others "xth Infantry Battalion" and also "xth Brigade" v. "xth Infantry Brigade";
• inconsistent presentation: "X Campaign" v. "X campaign" e.g. "New Britain Campaign" v "Bougainville campaign". Which is correct?
• in the Refs, some of the official history works have "Retrieved" dates, but others don't. I think based on FAC advice, these courtesy links should be removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Think I got these now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Gday. I've added a draft lead and would welcome some feedback. I think it probably needs to summarise equipment, leadership and training/doctrine as well but can't think how to do this currently. Any suggestions? Anotherclown (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Added a bit further now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, looks good but if possible try to reduce the number of times you mention the Army. I will try to go through the article and copy edit it a bit more, but my net connection is terrible at the moment. A couple more observations: do you wish to use a TOC and is the See also section necessary? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that it might be a bit long (its text occupies most of my large-ish monitor). If it's OK, I'll have a go at reducing the size. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gday Nick. Pls do - seems a standard problem of mine (long leads that is). AR - I think the TOC is helpful but you're right the "See also" section is probably redundant. Certainly happy with you doing another copy-edit. Thanks greatly for you help to this point. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Long leads seem to be increasingly popular though. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gday Nick. I've tweaked it a little again (added a sentence only on demobilisation) and merged two paras for balance (sorry this is my OCD/institutionalisation showing - if you don't think it works pls split again and I'll take my meds...). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I also binned the formation of the ARA and CMF post war part - seemed a bit of a tangent and not required in the lead to me (I know I put it in there in the first place but again if you disagree pls revert). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple more observations

Ok, I've gone through the article top to bottom. Please check that you are happy with my changes and tweak/change as you see fit. From my last run through, I have the following observations:

• should legislation titles be presented in italics?
  • Yes I think so. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• the Malaya and Singapore section starts a little abruptly...I wonder if there is a more smooth way of doing this. It almost seems like the first paragraph should be in a different section, but I'm not sure...
  • Agree - I've cut the sentence in half and moved the later part to the end of the Defence of Australia section. Does this work better? Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• there appears to be some off arguably off-topic information in a few places. For instance, "RAAF aircraft operating from bases in Java..."
  • Agree - there a product of stealling text from the parent article. Removed a couple, pls cull any others you see. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Some repetition: "The Australian Army's 16th and 17th Brigades formed part of the island's garrison..." and then in the next section "As a compromise two brigades of the 6th Division..."
  • Yeah I can see the problem, well spotted. Unfortunately a solution is not readily apparent to me. Would welcome some suggestions if you have them. Otherwise I'll stew on it for a bit and see if a beer sharpens the mind... Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just moved this material up to the section on Singapore and Malaya which solves the problem of duplication (albeit at a slight loss of chronological sequence). Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Cheers Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• this sentence seems like it needs something else: "These troops had seen action alongside Australian units throughout the New Guinea campaign"
  • Altered this a little. Does this work for you?
• the web link for the Lodge article doesn't appear to click through properly. It has something to do with the "id=" field, but I can't quite work it out. Compare the syntax used for the adb entry in Rupert Downes;
  • Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I wonder if the paragraph on demobilisation that is currently in the Post war subsection of the Campaigns section should be split into its own section titled "Demobilisation".
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, please let me know what you think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• G'day, your changes look good. I will try to see what I can do about the point 16th and 17th Brigades tomorrow. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nick got it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The copyediting and major edits seem to be done for the moment at least. Do you guys think this is ready for nomination for a GA review? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would benefit from a section on the POWs (which could be adapted from the Australian in World War II article), but other that that should be good to go. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats right you said that before and it must have slipped my mind. I'm going for a run for a hour or so but I'll see what I can do after that unless someone beats me to it. Got to have a Berroca first though... Cheers Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I've put something here now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments

I have a few more comments, which I'll make here rather than in the GA review, because I think I wrote some chunks of the article myself.

• The background should contain some more material about the Singapore strategy (which is mentioned in the Far East section), and the Army's political resistance to it.
  • Done something here last week. Is this adequate? Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• It should also make it clear that the Militia was a conscript force until 1929, when Labor abolished conscription.
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• The bit about the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act 1943is confusing. How about a map showing SWPA and the SWPZ?
  • There is a map on p. 341 of Hasluck, Paul. (1970). The Government and the People, 1942–1945. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 4 – Civil Volume II – (1st edition, 1970). I don't believe it to be PD, though, unfortunately given that it appears to have been published in 1970. Does anyone know any differently about that map? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• little had been done to prepare for the jungle warfare this would involve Sort of true, but possibly misleading. The Army's concept of fighting Japan involved repelling a Japanese invasion of Australia, so jungle warfare was not required.
  • I'm struggling to find a reference for this. Would you pls be able to suggest one? Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I found something in Keogh (pp. 34-35) and have added a small sentence. Do you think this is sufficient? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks AR. Looks good to me. Does this meet you concerns Hawkeye7? Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yesm that's fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for having another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Anyone have any luck here? Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• During this year the Army's strength peaked at eleven infantry divisions—the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and Northern Territory Force But NT Force was not a division until it became the 12th Division in late 1942. Can we get the numbers straight?
  • Tweaked this now. Is that what you meant? Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm... I note that Long 1963 p. 81 actually lists NT Force as one of those 14 divisions in August 1942 (not 12 Div) - I wonder if this should be changed back? Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• The article mentions that fourteen divisions was too many, but should also mention that the Army was unbalanced, and that it required many more service troops to be functional.
  • Good point - will see what I can find for this. Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nick and I have added some stuff here now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• North Africa: it was more economical in terms of shipping to use Australian troops in the Middle East rather than British or Canadian
• Link Battle of Bardia
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• There is some inconsistency about using the hyphen in "Lieutenant-General" I prefer not to myself, as no hyphen is now standard in Australian English.
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• The South Seas Force was forced to withdraw back along the track on this day, however, as supply problems made any further advance impossible and an Allied counter-landing at Buna was feared. Should also mention that IGHQ decided to withdraw after according priority to the Battle of Guadalcanal.
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'd mention that Merauke is on the south coast of (then Dutch) West Papua
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Consider moving "Demobilisation" down the bottom.
  • Makes sense - I've moved it to just above the casualties section. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• How about a summary to conclude with?

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australian Army in World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'm excited to see an article as intricate as this one at such a good level of quality. I'll be reviewing it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Background

• " The strategy met significant political opposition from sections of the regular Army..." -- Any politicians in particular?
  • Clarified this. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• " He contended that Singapore was vulnerable,..." -- He who? No one has been named at this point in the section.
  • Wynter - fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Organisation

• "Raising the Second Australian Imperial Force" glosses briefly over how units were organized. Is there anything about company structure? By this I mean how many men to a company? How many platoons and what role of each platoon? How large a headquarters element? Could be a footnote since some of this might belong on the Company (military) and Battalion pages.
• Also, some information about what differentiates an armored division from an infantry division in terms of organization. Once again could be a footnote.
• How many men to a division? In my writing about military units I've some attention focused on how U.S. Army forces in WWII were organized with lots of non-divisional Corps support units so they could be attached and detached easily, as opposed to Nazi German structure focusing more heavily on the divisions themselves.
  • Added a bit on the three points above. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also, I would have sort of expected this section to link to an OrBat of the Army in the war. That information would certainly be available.
  • Good idea - I've added a redlink. Will have to add the ORBAT to my to do list. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm partial to logistics and imagined it would also merit a mention somewhere.
  • Logistics is covered in the fourth paragraph of "Forces in Australia and the Pacific". Is more required on this? Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Women's services" section: "While General Blamey sought..." I don't see him having been linked or introduced before this.
  • Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "As a result, only about 400 of the 24,000 women who joined the AWAS served outside Australia." If there were any casualty numbers for AWAS I think they should be mentioned here.
  • The limited number that served overseas primarily served late in the war in HQ First Australian Army in Lae, although some were stationed in Hollandia. I not aware of them having suffered casualties but will keep looking. Nothing mention in Palazzo, Johnston or Long that I can see. Will keep looking. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • At the time the AWAS women were deployed outside Australia the areas they were sent were entirely secure, so there would have been no combat casualties. I'll check to see if there are any figures available for non-combat casualties (eg, disease and accidents). Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Will continue at "campaigns" in shortly

G'day Ed. Apologies for making a large edit in the middle of a review but I've now added a paragraph on command and administrative arrangements. This should have been included prior to the proceeding to GA but seems to have been a blindspot of mine. I hope this doesn't stuff you around too much. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! It looks good to me. —Ed!^(talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Operations

• "During the first years of World War II, Australia's military strategy was closely aligned with that of the United Kingdom. " -- You should note what the UK strategy was at this time.
  • Now added imperial defence policy which is explained in more detail in the Singapore strategy article. Is this sufficient? Anotherclown (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• ..." relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region after 1940." -- Was this a politically controversial decision?
• "The Australian military's role in the South-West Pacific decreased during 1944." -- This graph discusses the late-war drawdown, it might be helpful to note the number of US and UK forces that had been pumped into the Pacific War at this time.
  • Clarified, but I don't think UK ground forces were sent to SWPA in any great numbers, elsewhere yes (SEAC for example), but not SWPA. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Critics of these campaigns argue..." -- Avoid the "C" word without noting specifically who was critical of the decision
  • Mentioned one of the critics. Do you think this sufficient? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Post War: " it would have participated in the invasion of the Japanese home island of Honshū which was scheduled for March 1946." -- You should link to the appropriate article here, I believe it's Operation Coronet but I don't have the sources.
  • Yep Coronet - Horner 1982, p. 416. Add now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Leadership

• As with before, I would imagine a "List of Australian Army Generals article" could be created and top this section, or something of that nature.
  • Added something now - although its a fairly unrefined list in many regards. Is this what you were after? Anotherclown (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall

• There are 15 or so Dup links to fix, I won't list all here but they'll need to be fixed.
  • Fixed now, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• One dab link as well.
  • Got it now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• No problems with external links. All images have appropriate source and lisencing information. I see no apparent problems with either neutrality or stability.

Placing the article on hold pending these few improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work all of you. Passing article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 12:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments, Ed, and taking the time to review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Gday Ed. Thanks for taking to time to read through this and complete the review. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Map "The Mediterranean in 1942"

The map showing the mediterranean theatre should be removed from the article as it is largely incorrect. Vichy France is shown as an axis nation, the italian influence in southern France is far too big and the Soviet Union was no longer present on Krim or in Ukraine. And at last: all the borders are pre-1938. How could such a map pass the Good Article review of the article? --Bomzibar (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you might suggest a suitable replacement? Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For the whole Mediterranean this Map showing borders before the start of the Africa Campaign could be taken. Other maps showing the whole of North Africa during the campaign are difficult to find on Commons. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the accuracy of this map is also disputed so probably not really suitable either. Thanks anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I oversighted that, sorry. Well, I dont see that a map is really needed at that point. Otherwise there is maybe a Mapmaker who can draw an accurate map of the whole theatre. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Army during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831180651/http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/pages/NT00002612 to http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/pages/NT00002612
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716203542/http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/Cdclms/Command%20evolution.doc to http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/cdclms/Command%20evolution.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127142024/http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/pages/NT00002F06 to http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/pages/NT00002F06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)