Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/11th Airborne Division (United States)

11th Airborne Division (United States)

I'm putting 11th Airborne Division (United States) up for another peer review for before I attempt to go for FAC once again. Prose problems was the primary issue highlighted in the previous FAC, so I was hoping that any reviewers could concentrate on that more than anything else in particular. However, comments on other areas are welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Here are some suggestions. I wouldn't accept then wanton, since I may be wrong; but suggestions nonetheless. :P

• The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne division in the United States Army which was first activated during World War II. <- It seems that you are defining a word with the word. I think that "The 11th Airborne Division was an airborne force..." would sound better (even if not perfect); maybe you can think of a better way of defining it, but the way it is currently just doesn't roll off the tongue well.

I can see what you mean, though at the moment I'm at a loss as to what to replace it with. Force doesn't quite seem right. I'll keep thinking. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to 'formation' Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division was officially activated on 25 February 1943 and took part in several training exercises throughout the rest of the year, including the Knollwood Maneuver; the division played a vital part in this exercise, helping to ensure that the airborne division remained as a military formation in the United States Army after the poor performance of American airborne forces during Operation Husky. <- Very long and clunky, I think. I think dividing it into at least two sentences, and re-writing the second part, would make it sound much better. Also, it's not very clear how partaking in maneuvers helped the division survive deactivation. It's just sort of confusing.

Completely rewritten it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The division remained in the United States as a reserve formation and did not take part in the early airborne operations conducted by the Allies, such as Operation Husky and Operation Neptune, only transferring to the Pacific Theater in June 1944. <- "Remaining in the United States as a reserve formation, the division did not take part in early airborne operations conducted by the Allies..." I think this sounds better and is simpler, and you should probably watch out for redundant words like "the" (in this sentences).

Same as above, rewritten. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some of these sentences are very long; it might be good to split some of them off.

Done! Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the rest of it later (only got the intro). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I copyedit the article, slightly? You can revert anything you want, if you feel it wasn't an improvement. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, fell free! I'll get to these suggestions when I can. Skinny87 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a massive rewrite of the Knollwood Maneuver section, which is a particularly bad piece of writing in the article. I would appreciate it if the article were to remain un-edited by anyone until I finish, hopefully by tonight. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I managed to finish the rewrite early, so any copy-editing is now more than welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments

• Despite being activated in 1943, the division was not immediately shipped out to Europe to participate in the first large-scale Allied airborne operation, the Allied invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) – unlike the 82nd Airborne Division, which had been activated a year prior to the 11th Airborne. <- Was it normal for a division to be shipped out immediately? The sentence gives that connotation, although it then says that the 82nd was activated a year earlier. If this isn't the case, I would suggest something like, Activated in 1943, the division was not shipped out to Europe in time to participate ..."

Done!

• Another general officer took command of the division until Swing returned. <- Would it be possible to include who this was?

This came up last time and I couldn't find their name, but I'll look again.

Devlin doesn't say. I have a suspicion it may have been Brig. Gen. Albert E. Pierson who headed a smaller version of the Swing Board, but there's no actual evidence saying that. So it's just an un-named officer at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits to part of the article, most of them minor. In one case I split a paragraph up, because I got confused half way through it, and finally realized that it was talking about something else. I hope this is OK.

Hey, that's fine, thanks.

• I made some edits that I thought made the text clearer. If you don't agree, then you're probably right, and just undo them. :P
• The ridge itself was an open space some two thousand yards (1,829 m) wide and four thousand yards (3,657 m) wide <- Should one of those be "long"?

Done!

• (sentence slightly different due to minor ce) The division was ordered to breach the Genko Line and drive into Manila, linking up with other American forces attacking the city from the north. All three of the divisions regiments were committed, and they began their advance on 5 February, managing to break through the defensive line despite fierce resistance by Japanese units manning the section of the line the division attacked. <- Is that last part necessary? I didn't want to outright remove it, because it's a large change you might not agree with, but it seems intuitive that the resistance would be coming from Japanese units those divisions were engaging... so to me, it seems sort of redundant.

Redundancy made redundant! Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over everything after Luzon in about ten minutes, after I eat. I hope this is OK, insofar. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the article is ready for FAC. In my opinion, any changes that have to be made are minor, and will be made over the next few days. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flanagan wrote a book on the division, called The Angels: A History of the 11th Airborne Division. Unfortunately, the cheapest price they have it for on Amazon.com is $26, and I couldn't find it on ABE books. Amazon.ca has it for $30 canadian collars, while Amazon.uk doesn't have it available. The cheapest alibris has it for is $26 (there are some copies that are over $100), and ebay has it for $26. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't have the option to look inside it (probably because all copies are being sold by third parties), and it's not on Google books. I thought it would help decipher who took command while Swing was in Sicily. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I've been trying to get a copy of that for less than $Texas, but in the UK it's insanely expensive. The snippets in Google Books are useless as well, and no library in my area has a copy. Gah! Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Flanagan's book. Would be happy to search for specific information for you. My Dad was in the 11th AB 472nd. He was a paratrooper and radioman. user deeaugust

Found a few thesis' online referring to the Board, but none actually stating who replaced Swing whilst he was on detachment to the Board. This is so frustrating, but at least this'll be good evidence for FAC if someone brings it up like they did last time. Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• The first paragraph is better than it used to be. Of the 17 divisions formed in 1943, only the 2nd Cavalry Division preceded the 11th Airborne Division overseas, and nine divisions did not depart until 1945. Officially, the 11th Airborne Division departed San Francisco POE for the South West Pacific Area on 8 May 1944. It arrived in Papua between 25 May and 11 June 1944 (not "sailed").

I'll adjust the writing for that, but have you got a source to cite for those divisions not departing until 1945?

Stanton is a good source. Also Palmer, Wiley, Bell and Keast, The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 488-493. Of the divisions formed in 1943, only five departed in 1944: 2nd Cavalry (March), 11th Airborne (May), 17th Airborne (August), 106th Infantry (November) and 66th Infantry (December). The Battle of the Bulge caused a panic in which all remaining ZI divisions were shipped to ETO in January-February 1945: 13th Airborne, 42nd, 63rd, 65th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 97th, and 16th, and 20th Armored Divisions (plus the 13th Armored Division, formed in 1942). The 10th Mountain Division was shipped to MTO in January 1945 as originally scheduled. These divisions included three already preparing to move to the Philippines: the 13th and 20th Armored, and 71st Infantry Division - a division specially trained in jungle warfare. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I don't think I'll add that in - instead I deleted the bit about the 82nd going first, as your info rightly points out it wasn't a big deal that it didn't go to Sicily for Husky. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sailed' adjusted to 'arrived'

• How about adding an Order of battle?

Order of Battle - 11th Airborne Division Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 11th Airborne Division 187th Glider Infantry Regiment 188th Glider Infantry Regiment (Parachute Infantry from 20 July 1945) 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment Military Police Platoon, 11th Airborne Division 11th Parachute Maintenance Company 152d Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 11th Airborne Division Artillery 457th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion 472nd Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (from 20 July 1945) 674th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 675th Glider Field Artillery Battalion 408th Airborne Quartermaster Company 511th Airborne Signal Company 711th Airborne Ordnance Maintenance Company 221st Airborne Medical Company 127th Airborne Engineer Battalion

Source: Stanton, Order of Battle, U. S. Army World War II, p. 94

• Why does the 11th Airborne have a separate linage to the WWI 11th Division? This is not the case with other airborne divisions.

Honestly, I have no idea and I'm not even sure where to find out about that.

It might be because the 11th was demobbed in 1919 and presuambly never reactivated - that's according to its wiki article. That sentence is a relic from when this article was a start-class one months ago. Perhaps I should just get rid of it all together?

I removed that sentence - it can always be added on if any evidence linking the two comes up. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You note that the strength of the division was around 8,500 when first formed, but it remained this way for much of its existence. Whereas divisions in Europe adopted a larger establishment. The 11th moved to the 1944 War Department tables in June 1945, increasing its size to 13,000.

I'll add that in if you could cite a source for it. I'm coming to find Flanagan more and more wanting as a historian of the 11th.

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 349. Also Stanton, p. 11 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to think that the Knollwood piece is very interesting, but may overstate the case. McNair wanted small, light divisions, and had proposed converting four airborne divisions - all but the 82nd - to light divisions in May 1943 ie before the invasion of Sicily. The light division concept failed, and McNair retained the four airborne divisions. There wasn't enough troop carrier capacity in SWPA to lift the whole of the 11th at once, so it was accepted that it would act as a light division. Eisenhower eventually adopted Ridgway's plan for a larger airborne division.

I'm getting kinda nervous now - I didn't know any of that and my sources didn't say that either. Could you tell me where this is coming from - maybe I can buy it if it's a book?

Greenfield, Palmer and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 344, 349.

I think there's enough detail in this article about Knollwood, but I'll use that source and expand on the exercise when I write the Knollwood article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leyte: "It was ordered to relieve the 7th Infantry Division, engage and destroy all Japanese forces in its operational area," What was its operational area?

Good old Flanagan fails to state this - I'll try and find it out.

Devlin to the rescue! Specified.

See Cannon, Leyte: The Return to the Philippines, p. 296 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment was ordered to conduct the attack against the Japanese," What attack? Where?

I'll get on to rewording that.

Reworded via Devlin!

• "when conventional transport, such as mule-trains," Actually, mule-trains weren't all that conventional either.

Thank god, something easy! Re-worded

• Why hyphenate Major General? To me, that it a British-ism. But the rest of the article is in American. Maj.Gen. is okay (the wartime abbreviation - MG is used today) but my personal preference is to spell it out in full.

Part of that is that an anon. I.P kept changing things in the article, including that rank. I'll try and change them all to Maj. Gen.

Right, all changed to 'Maj. Gen'

• Luzon: You place all the blame for the inaccurate drop on the 317th TCG, but lack of jump discipline on the part of the 511th also contributed.

Only because that's what my sources stated - I'll look again, but some help would be appreciated if you have another source on the matter!

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 228. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's been seen to, added the online source Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing a description of operations in the Lipa corridor after Los Banos in March and April.

My sources have failed me completely - I didn't know there were any operations. I apologize, but I'm not sure what to do. Could you suggest a source?

Holy Moly! I found those operations - they were under 'Occupation of Japan' in Devlin. I'll add it as soon as I can.

See also Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, pp. 425-435. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the section ysing Devlin, but I don't want to add in any more detail as this article is big enough as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, I would put the order of battle in its own article and link to it. This article is already very large. It's a good idea (and a potential featured list). JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that's a lot of comments :) Thanks Hawkeye, but just to let you know some of these might take me a few days to get back to you with. Skinny87 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye - I started a conversation over on MILHIST about web references like Hyperwar, and to be honest I'm not comfortable using them in an article I want to get to FA-Class. Like SandyGeorgia said in the FAC for the Nevada, Hyperwar isn't exactly very reliable for several reasons. Hence, I'll add what I can from my text sources, but I'm afraid I don't want to use Hyperwar or any other web resource I'm not completely sure about. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't use web sources either - I use the books. These are the Green books, and they trump any other secondary sources, such as Flanagan or Devlin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinions on official accounts aside, I guess they're good enough for wikipedia; but are those links reliable in terms of transcription - are they RS? Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And per your comment on the MILHIST talkpage, I don't have access to the Green books - Warwick University only has the British Official Histories, not the US ones. But if Hyperwar is reliable, I'll use them. Skinny87 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If those books use the official histories as sources, then the official histories are theoretically superfluous. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In practice, since we can't use the primary sources, the official histories become the final arbiters of any conflicts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true. For example, the official Soviet histories on the performance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front are horribly unreliable. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)