:Osioni, I'm a little confused by the paragraph from Bowman you've put into the article. What does the "Indianisation" of the 10th Division mean? Are we talking here about the dispersal of its units or the dilution of its Irish character. Not the same things. How can we condense this para and also get the facts right?. 

 In 1918, the 10th Division was further broken up, split between the Middle East and Western Front. Military historian Timothy Bowman points out that ‘Following the German Spring Offensive, the need for manpower on the Western Front saw the Indianisation of the 10th (Irish) Division serving in the Middle East. Effectively meant that six Irish battalions were released for service on the Western Front. It was perhaps felt, as in the case of Irish regular battalions, that the experience of the Service battalions of the 10th (Irish) Division should be spread through other formations. A second practical problem for the 10th Division to be split up was malaria. Obviously, concentrating so many men with malaria in one division could have lead to that division being unfit for action on an almost permanent basis. Lastly, bereft of political allies and in a situation where the BEF generally was facing serious manpower problems , it is not surprising that the 10th (Irish) Division was broken up, rather than other formations transferred from the Middle East to the Western Front’. [7]