Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

The 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion was one of four similar units raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force for overseas service during the Second World War. Recruited mainly from Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, the 2/2nd were attached to the 9th Division and fought in the Battles of El Alamein, and undertook garrison duties in Syria and Lebanon, in the early part of the war. Later, they took part in the fighting against the Japanese in New Guinea, participating in campaigns to capture Lae, the Huon Peninsula and Borneo. This is the second machine gun battalion article I have brought to ACR and I hope to eventually do the same with the other two, although I will continue to hint to Peacemaker that he might like to work on the 2/3rd MG...; - ) Thank you to all who stop by to help review and improve the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This article is in very good shape, and I only have some minor comments:

How did the move to the tropical/jungle organisation affect the battalion? (in particular, how did it move the heavy machine guns around after losing much of its transport?)
The lengthy sentence starting with "After a month of garrison duties and work parties" should be split into two or more sentences
It seems that the 9th Division didn't really know what to do with the 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion during its campaigns in 1943, with it's personnel frequently being mis-used as labourers or ad-hoc infantry reserves. Do any sources state this explicitly and/or explain why? (from memory, Palazzo has written that the 1943 tropical organisation didn't have enough transport, which might have been the problem, especially in the very rugged terrain)
"which was drawn to a close quicker than expected by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai in early August 1945" - not sure about this: the 9th Division had reached all its goals around Brunei Bay and Tarakan by July, and didn't intend to pursue the Japanese into the interior of Borneo. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick-D: Thanks, Nick, I've made a few adjustments based on your comments. Please let me know if anything else needs work. I wasn't able to load Palazzo's Organising for Jungle Warfare, unfortunately, as my computer seems to be on its way out... I used to have a saved copy, but I lost that when the other computer died and now this one looks like it will go the same way. D'oh. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. The machine gun battalions certainly look like good units to have avoided being part of in the Pacific! Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments:~~Support
- The Battalion history (Oakes) has a bit IRT to transport, from p. 229: The Tropical War Establish was approved in October 1944 which officially confirmed that the battalion would no longer be motorized, however, was an improvement on New Guinea, providing 19 jeeps and trailers for the battalion (as opposed to just six during the previous campaign in New Guinea). "Now the only difference between the machine gunners and the infantry was that the mug gunners had to walk just as far, but carry heavier loads!". The narrative bounces around a little but on page 230 he elaborates on the previous situation in New Guinea, writing: "At Red Beach the vehicle strength had shrunk to two 6x6 GMC five-tonners and six jeeps. Each machine gun company got a jeep, with the other two retained at Battalion HQ and HQ Company. With no roads, and water transport being used to move stores, the five-tonners were left behind on Red Beach, where they were used largely as tractors... The New Guinea campaign demonstrated that the rate of advance in tropical warfare was governed by the speed with which the Engineers could make the jeep tracks. With sufficient jeeps, an adequate supply of ammunition for the Vickers could be maintained at the jeephead, always close up behind the leading infantry." Continuing on p. 231: "But with only one jeep per company available, it proved difficult to keep up supplies to all platoons... The new establishment announced that October [1944] provided for a jeep and trailer at Battalion HQ, two with HQ Company, and four jeeps and trailers with each machine gun company, one to be at Company HQ. The 8-cwt water trailers were discarded, the water supply being provided by two-gallon containers on an ordinary trainer." AR - hopefully this is useful, pls let me know if you need more. Anotherclown (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- IRT to misuse a quick skim of Oakes didn't reveal the issue being mentioned in such terms; however, it certainly mentions the battalion being used in secondary roles such as unloading ships, carrying supplies, local defence, also as infantry etc. The best ref for this is probably page 191-92 which is already used in the article. The information now added in the last paragraph from Fraser and Hocking though now looks like it probably covers this though. Anotherclown (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Anotherclown: Thanks for that, AC, I've added a bit more on the vehicles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having reviewed at GA and checked over the changes now made as part of the A class review I'm of the opinion this meets the criteria for promotion so I've added my support now. A couple of very minor suggestions / nitpicks though:
      - No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [1]
      - Image review: all images seem to be PD and have the required templates / information.
      - File:Members of B Company of the 2-2 Machine Gun Battalion moving along a road towards Brunei AWM 109273.jpg - lacks Alt text, given all the others have it you might consider adding it to this image too for consistency.
      - The really short paragraph that mentions Eric Lambert is wedged b/n two larger paragraphs which to me at least is visually grating (yes I probably have OCD). Perhaps you might tack it on to the end of the para above?
      - There is one instance of "machine-gunners", which seems inconsistent with your usage of "machine gun" with no hyphen throughout.
      - Slightly repetitive prose here: "...largely being carried across the battlefield by soldiers moving on foot; however, it was largely..." (largely x 2).
      - Otherwise it looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, I've made those changes now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Service in the Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Reviewing this, I identified very few quibbles. The article is in excellent shape, as per your normal work AR, so the only comments I would have to make are:

Militia is linked but not on first mention (I initially thought it wasn't linked at all and was going to suggest this be done until I found the link).
"...the battalion was assigned to the 2nd AIF's second division – the 7th – and...": maybe add a note regarding the numbering of the Aussie divisions? The 1st to 5th were the militia divisions right?
"This came to an end in late June 1942 when until the 9th was rushed...": delete until?
"...individual Australian brigades during First Battle of El Alamein as the Allied forces – who had, since the beginning of the year...": during the First..., and shouldn't the "who" be "which"?
Publisher for Hocking?

That is it for me. Zawed (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for stopping by. I think I've got all of these now. These are my changes: [2]. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, adding my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2016 (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.