Talk:2nd Canadian Division during World War II

message: The reason I only gave this article a "start" assessment is the lack of references.  Other than that it looks great.  With a few in line references you should think about putting this one up for GA status.--Looper5920 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I see that one of the headings has been changed to the above. I don't recognise it as one of the official campaign titles - even the Juno beach article doesn't use it. Where did it spring from (besides the book title). It sounds a bit triumphal / POV? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 07:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory campaign 

message: I deleted "rather than in a series of diversionary "holding attacks" & "21st Army Group then decided the primary task of the newly-activated First Canadian Army would be to pin down German formations south of Caen, diverting attention from the highly successful American breakout in the west.Bercuson, p. 227" because this is self-serving Monty fiction, & there's no place for it here.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  08:26 & 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now hold on!

message: "1st mechanized infantry"? I really doubt it, since the Germans had used HTs long before... And am I wrong thinking 272nd Grenadier Infantry Division =272d Pzgrenadier?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check the mechanized infantry bit with my references.  As for the 272nd, it was technically the 272nd Infantry Division (Germany), although many of my sources on the conflicts around verrieres (particularly Roman Jarymowycz and Terry Copp) refer to it as the "272nd Grenadier Infantry Division", while the division that was formed from the wreckage of it was the 272nd Volksgrenadier Division (Germany).  In addition, the organization of a grenadier-infantry division VS a panzergrenadier division differed, as most PzGren divisions had 2 infantry battalions and 2 panzer battalions, whereas the 272nd had 3 infantry battalions and 1 tank battalion.  I'll do a bit more digging into this. Cam (Chat) 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. When you find it, will you message my talk with your sources? I'm always looking for good ones.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, the only thing I can find for the 272. Grenadier is mention of a Panzerjäger battalion, and that is specified as 12 towed 75-mm antitank guns (the unit was apparently missing any self-propelled antitank vehicles), this equipment quote is dated 25 May 1944.  Also found this "According to an organization chart for 3 August 19446 minor changes had occurred. The Pz.Jäg.Abt. had been expanded by the addition of a Flak company with ten 8,8 cm Flak guns, one platoon with three towed 7,5 cm AT guns and one platoon with three SP 7,5 cm AT guns. It seems however that the organization chart depicts authorized organization, not actual for the date indicated. There are no indications in the records that any SP 7,5 cm AT guns were sent to the division.7" - this from Zetterling's OOB page for Normandy. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoot me kangaroo down, sport

message: Apologies for the delay (busy busy busy!). I'll post comments, questions etc below. EyeSerenetalk 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: *I changed 'disbanded' to 'stood down' in the last sentence (trying to avoid repetition of 'disbanded'). I'm aware there are semantic differences, so do you think this is ok?
Being ex-military, I can say that these are two different things.  If a unit is disbanded, it    ceases to exist as a unit.  If it "stands down," it can simply be taken off the line, but it continues to exist.  That seems to me to be more than a "semantic" difference.  Or is that the dreaded "original research?"
Terry J. Carter (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: North of the Rhine (March–May 1945)

message: G'day, this article is currently undergoing a Milhist A-class re-appraisal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Canadian Infantry Division. As part of this, there is a proposal to move the article to 2nd Canadian Division during World War II to make it clearer that it is a child article of the broader 2nd Canadian Division article and to make it more consistent with the approaches of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division,  3rd Canadian Infantry Division, and 4th Canadian Infantry Division articles, which redirect back to the parent article. If anyone has an opinion on whether this article meets the Milhist A-class criteria, and/or about the proposed move, please join the discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This move has been completed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move suggestion / A-class re-appraisal