Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of British deception formations in World War II

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British deception formations in World War II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

Another in the series of lists dedicated to British formations during the Second World War. This lists all the armies, corps, divisions, and independent brigades (there was a lack of information to provide a full account of all notional brigades. When known, they are listed within the note for the bogus division they were assigned to) formed for deception purposes. The deception efforts of the war are not my specialty, although I have tried - based off the various sources - to provide a general overview of the various order of battle deception efforts and how they were conducted to provide context to the list. The list has been given the once over by the guild of copy editors. I welcome all feedback to whip this into A-Class shape.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

File:Bantam.png — could you add the source of the information in the image description?

All images look OK for licensing (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your source review. I have overhauled the commons page for this image, including source info and PD-UK Gov.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe if the Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45 html versions or other sources are carefully searched, they will provide a reference for the fact that the New Zealand Division in Egypt was retitled "2nd New Zealand Division" and the Maadi base camp notionally became "6th New Zealand Division" under the "Cascade scheme" (don't search for 'Operation Cascade,' use 'Cascade scheme.') Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I inserted a reference for this from another source some time ago. From 2nd New Zealand Division: Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, 'New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches 1911–1991,' 1995, Part One, 50, 158 (Appendix I). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha!! Exact description at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Prob-c4.html, down to numbering of imaginary infantry brigades and Field Ambulances. If memory serves correctly at Thomas & Lord above in Part One there is a full list of notional imaginary units and subunits. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have added in a note, after the mention of there being New Zealand deception formations, which outlines the NZD->2NZD and the training camp as examples of the NZ contribution to Cascade. I have also added Thomas and Lord in a new further reading section. I have not added all mention of NZ formations, as that probably should be in its own article (or grouped together with other CW deception formations).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this list only covers armies, corps, divisions, and independent brigades, there's no other NZ formations to list. If your scope includes other Dominion/Colonial formations like 10 African Airborne, 6 Div should just be added to the main listing~~,maybe after or before 10th African Airborne Division~~. As an aside, I was interested to read 3rd Armoured Division was to be formed (in reality), but was cancelled; there's only one gap in the armoured divisions sequence, 4th Armoured Division. Have you ever heard anything about that? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended: actually 6 NZ Division would fill the gap nicely between 5th Armoured Div and 7th Division (Cyprus). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to come back here. Looks like you found List of Allied deception formations in World War II‎ that I started work on just after this conversation. As you have noticed, the list includes the NZ deception formations. I have - for real and deception - included the African formations within the British Army lists as they appear to be an extension of it rather than part of their own army ala the Indian Army, the Canandian Army etc.

Unfortunately, so far, I have not found anything yet about a potential 4th Armoured Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

This article is very interesting, and in good shape. I have the following comments:

The 'background' section would greatly benefit from sub-headings
"double the number of forces" - bit awkward
"Deception formations was not limited to British forces" - ditto
" MI5, the British security service, had eliminated the German spy ring" - I think that there may have been multiple spy networks?
The background section should note that the German intelligence services were pretty bad at estimating enemy force levels. They got Soviet strengths disastrously wrong throughout the war, and the Soviets also ran very effective deception campaigns as well.
Watch out for over-use of phrases like 'notionally'. See the 5th Airborne Division entry, for instance.
There's a fair bit of over-linking various deception units in the entries on divisions
What did maintaining the 70th division on the OOB involve?
Have any authors commented on whether the British created too many deception units, or ran significant risks in creating this many? Inflating their army by this much or so long seems to have been rather risky. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @EnigmaMcmxc: you might have missed this review. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EnigmaMcmxc ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EnigmaMcmxc has not edited Wikipedia for six weeks. Possibly this one needs archiving? @WP:MILHIST coordinators: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I'm going to go ahead and close this one. @EnigmaMcmxc: when you're ready to get back to this one I can reopen it for you. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 3 June 2022 (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.