Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/32nd Infantry Division Triglavski

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a considerable hiatus, I'm back working on the many Yugoslav order of battle articles covering the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. The 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski was seriously deficient in firepower and mobility, was deployed in the mountains along the Italian border, and didn't see a lot of fighting. The 7th Army, of which it was a part, was encircled when the Italians and Germans met across its rear, and the whole army promptly surrendered. This went through GAN in January last year, but I've expanded it a fair bit recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

  • The links to Overwhelming Force... and The German Invasion... seem to be dead. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trevor-Roper needs an OCLC, not an ISBN. (Or you have the year wrong.)
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study, by the time the invasion commenced, the 32nd ID had only commenced mobilisation" Minor style point, two times "commenced" in close proximity.
  • "During the night of 10/11 April". The MoS suggests '10–11 April'.

That's all I can come up with. No doubt more experienced eyes will be more helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in good shape, noting that this was a very short-lived unit which doesn't seem to have done anything but retreat in chaos as part of its parent army. I have the following minor comments:

  • The TOE of the Yugoslav divisions looks fairly standard for this era (though on the generous side). Am I right in thinking that the reason they were so huge was due more to the number of men in their components rather than the number of components?
  • There were a whole bunch of specialist companies at divisional level, but the fourth infantry regiment, a fourth battalion per regiment (a bit like First AIF brigades), and a fourth battalion per artillery regiment are the main reasons I can see. There was a whole "supplementary" regiment attached to the division which included three battalions, each of which could have up to five companies, so that would have blown the numbers out as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would explain it, but the article says that there were three battalions per regiment at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Fixed, p. 106 of Terzic is where the difference lies. I have preferred him over Niehorster in this instance, given his higher level of detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good, and certainly explains the size of the divisions. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what happened to the division's soldiers after the end of the campaign? Were they freed, or did they stay POWs? Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day Nick most were released, the Axis decided that Serbs were the biggest threat, and 90% of all Yugoslav POWs held for the duration were Serbs. Added a sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Possible to make the deployment location labels larger?
  • G'day Nikkimaria, thanks for your review. I've tried to increase them, but they never seem to get bigger. There are some limitations in these map templates that I just don't understand... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Looks to be in good shape, just a few comments.

  • from the lead: "lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition.": isn't sufficient redundant?
  • I don't think so. They had some ammunition, but only enough for the short-term. In some ammunition natures, they had far too little.
  • from the wartime organisation section: "The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937, and the strength of an infantry division was 26,000–27,000 men." : The structure of this sentence is odd; should it be: The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937 and stipulated the strength of an infantry division be 26,000–27,000 men?
  • Much better. Done.
  • Checking the sources, on the face of it, the books and journals look reliable. However, not sure about the Niehorster websites - are they reliable? He seems to be a published author but with Axis Europa, which is associated with Antonio Munoz? Zawed (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a PhD in history and several books on orders of battle published by The Military Press and other publishers, and held by libraries like the University of Cambridge, Australian Defence Force Academy, US Air Force Academy etc. I've found him to be highly accurate and consistent with other sources for order of battle information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, happy with that, adding support now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2018 (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/32nd_Infantry_Division_Triglavski&oldid=854829149"