Talk:Chaytor's Force

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / British / European / South Asia / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force South Asian military history task force World War I task force

The following was posted of RoslynSKP's userpage: You are in danger of the 3RR - as the force is difficult to describe can you explain your opposition to it being part of the main article and not a note.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney does not own this article. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, glad you agree, but I note you failed to answer and just deleted the question. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent historiography as information. It is not. Its questionable whether this information should be even in a note in Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No there is an evidenced problem with describing Chaytor's Force, several historians/authors have been unable to come to a definition. This should be recorded, or we have the situation where someone claims it an army corps.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem describing Chaytor's Force. See Third Transjordan attack

You are indulging in historiography. --Rskp (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Transjordan article is not about Chaytor's Force so of course it is not detailed.

Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. Is that not what we all are doing?Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to the post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Chaytor's Force. There doesn't seem to be a major discrepancy between those descriptions of this force - it's important to note that mounted rifle/cavalry divisions were much smaller than infantry divisions (in his book Australia's Palestine Campaign, Jean Bou notes that all elements of mounted formations were much smaller than their infantry equivalents, and a mounted infantry brigade could only deploy as many soldiers in combat as a single infantry battalion after men were detached to look after the horses). As a result, attaching an infantry brigade to a mounted rifle division effectively doubled its combat power, though it's obviously difficult to compare the effectiveness of the two types of units. In this book Bou states that the force comprised the Anzac Mounted Division, the 20th Indian Brigade, "two Jewish battalions of the Royal Fusiliers, two battalions of the British West Indies Regiment and a mixture of field and heavy artillery" (page 128), and then calls it a "demi-corps". All up, given the difficulty of comparing the different types of units, simply outlining the unit's order of battle as was done in this edit seems the best approach. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely agree with Nick-D on this. The "cavalry" description used by one of the sources is an obvious clanger as there were three LH/MR Bdes and no actual cavalry. The 20th Indian Bde with four battalions and four more independent battalions makes this a pretty strong mixed force in terms of mobility and firepower. Obviously a heavily reinforced mounted division, and far less powerful than an infantry division, but the mixed nature of the force in that theatre is what gave it potency. A "demi-corps" is probably a good description. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad-hoc formation on classical British lines; no use of kampfgruppe but instead X Force, as in 'Malakand Field Force' or suchlike. 'Demi-corps' is just fine, ESPECIALLY because it is sourced. I must say I have found these repeated ownership issues caused by Jim Sweeney tiresome and childish. Grow up, people !! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, however I am not aware of any repeated ownership issues, that I have. There was a problem identified, discussion did not solve it, so more editors were invited to comment. !Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 - I don't see how the last part of your comment is in anyway helpful. I've tried pretty hard to stay away from the Middle East Campaign articles over the last year because of these issues and would ordinarily ignore these threads however I take exception to your previous comment and feel obliged to write something. There are two sides to these issues so unless your intention is to inflame the situation addressing only one of them is unwarranted. I have my own opinions on the real source of the ownership issues highlighted here and I'll be upfront: its not Jim that has the problem. That is all I will say on this matter. Anotherclown (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should sources be quoted even when they are clearly in error? The deception myth is POV. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources I think not;

• Perrett, Bryan is an unreliable source. on what evidence Osprey is a world renowned publishing house and Bryan Perrett served in the Royal Armoured Corps, the 17th/21st Lancers, Westminster Dragoons and the Royal Tank Regiment. During the Falklands and Gulf wars he worked as defence correspondent for the Liverpool Echo. His books are widely read on both sides of the Atlantic and have been translated into several languages. His most recent work, For Valour - Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor Battles, is shortly to be released in paperback. He has also written and contributed to several episodes of Eagle Media Productions' series Fighting the Iron Fist, recently screened by Sky Television.[1].

• David Horner is the professor of Australian defence history at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian University, Canberra. A graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, who served as an infantry platoon commander in South Vietnam, Colonel Horner is the author of over twenty books on military history and defence, including High Command (1982)[2]

Two independent authors who's credentials stand up to scrutiny both agree so if you think the deception is a myth where is your source, or is it just your opinion. If there is a source add it.

Then there is Allenby's despatches; To prevent the decrease in strength in the Jordan Valley being discovered by the enemy, I ordered Major-General Sir Edward Chaytor, .....to carry out a series of demonstrations with the object of inducing the enemy to believe that an attack east of the Jordan was intended. [3] Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the demonstrations are referred to in Third Transjordan attack which tested the front line. The demonstrations were designed to keep the enemy holding the line in the Jordan Valley's attention focused in the Jordan Valley no more no less. Read the Third Transjordan attack!! --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point, if your now agreeing the deceptions happened.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

• The dates are wrong which one?

The 22 September agrees with Third Transjordan attack#Battle for Jordan River crossings 22 September The Auckland and Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiments, supported by the 1st Battalion, British West Indies Regiment, advanced to attack the Ottoman garrison holding the bridge at Jisr ed Damieh. A "hot fight" by the infantry and mounted riflemen forced the defenders to retreat in disorder, and the intact bridge was captured cited to Wavell and Moore so is that article wrong as well? and The 38th Royal Fusiliers took advantage of the weakening Ottoman position at Mellaha. At 03:00 on 22 September they advanced to occupy trenches overlooking the ford at Umm esh Shert, which was captured shortly afterwards. cited to the ANZAC war diary and Falls. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The myths of dummy camps and mules dragging branches to make dust etc. are POV and do not have a place on Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This attack was to the north. Your dubious source is describing the attacks eastwards which started the day after. --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the source says they started crossing on 22 September, which is correct see above. How can dummy camps and dragging branches be POV. If you have evidence that the author or publisher are unreliable, suggest you use it. The myths of dummy camps and mules dragging branches to make dust etc. Have you even a source that says it did not happen or is this just your opinion. Allenby ordered "By demonstration and pressure he was to prevent the enemy withdrawing troops to reinforce other parts of the line" what were these demonstrations. The ANZAC war diary claims they made fires where they could be seen by the Turks, but not obviously so. A dummy camp? And it also mentions marching up in daylight and back during darkness, their intention to persuade the Turks of large forces moving into the area. By making dust dragging branches would be an obvious improvement of this and it cited to a professor of Australian defence history at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre and author of over twenty books on military history and defence. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being fussy? I read "mounted & infantry bde", & I find myself thinking people are going to think cavalry, not dragoon, which they were. Can I suggest they instead be described as "4 infantry bde (3 mounted)"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were light horse and NZ mounted rifles, neither of which are infantry. 4 infantry bdes is not accurate. The force consisted of a reinforced mounted division. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linked mounted infantry. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my point would better made by stressing that the division on which this org was based was a mounted infantry one. Not just infantry. We don't refer to panzer grenadier regiments or divisions as just infantry. In this case the division was mounted, and it was reinforced with infantry. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies lads - I came to the article because of the discussion, but got distracted by how badly worded the first sentence was that I forgot it was under discussion and just editted it. I'm not particularly wedded to the wording or the description of the unit, just felt it shouldn't mention Chaytor (and wikilink him) twice in the same sentence. Pls feel free to alter what I wrote. Anotherclown (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]