![]() | List of British divisions in World War II is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 1, 2022. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of British divisions in World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are units here supposed to be listed twice? Like the two London Divisions (1st London, 2nd London, 56th (London) and 47th (London)). Also the 42nd Infantry and 42nd Armour.-- Caranorn 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is an article called 1st (African) Division which was redesignated as the 11th (African) Division. The article currently says "On 23 November 1941 the division headquarters ceased to exist."
However a British Army Division numbered 11 and often called the "11th East African Division"( second paragraph) fought in Burma.
So I was the 11th reconstituted at some later date and if so should we include that in the article 1st (African) Division along the lines of
Or should we create a new article along the lines of the 81st (West Africa) Division. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add summary histories for the divisions listed on this page. While practically every division listed has an article of its own with information in depth, I think it would be a useful addition to this page to have summary histories for all the divisions available at a glance.
As this list is a "mature" article, I don't wish to make a format change to the information without a discussion first. An example of what I'd like to do:
The summaries would also be provided for less well-known units that don't have their own articles, like the 12th Division of the
Sudan Defence Force.
Request comments on this proposal. Thanks--
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a significant degree of confusion in the article titles, and also in the claims made by Indian and Pakistani articles to lineage of the British Indian Army.
Where the part of the division title is not Arm of Service, it needs to be in (London) form. All need to have the (United Kingdom) added.
British Divisions in World War II
The problem of lineage claims came to my attention via the 7th Indian Infantry Division wich has inexplicably been linked to the Pakistani Army.
However, the issue is much greater with the Indian Army divisional articles.
list of Indian divisions in WWII.
Needless to say no Army belonging to a state's government which had not yet come into existence before 1945 can claim unit participation in the Second World War. Besides this rather obvious fact, when the equipment and personnel of the former British Indian Army divisions were transferred to the newly created national armies of India and Pakistan, the British units had already been disbanded by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the new Indian and Pakistani divisions were brought into being by the Acts of Parliaments of their two respective governments. No campaign participation or awards can be claimed by these new divisions, and no lineage exists although I understand that many had adopted British Army formation badges for their own insignia.
Then again, I could be wrong, but I would like to be shown the reason if that is the case.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
::::At the time of the partition of India there were ten Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army, each regiment consisting of a number of battalions. As a result of negotiations between the Nepalese, British and Indian Governments (known as the ‘Tripartite Agreement’) four of these regiments, each of two battalions were transferred to the British Army, the remainder staying with the new Indian Army. [1]
My two pennyworth. Firstly, to avoid confusion, units must be referred to in historical articles by the title by which they were known or commonly referred to at the time. Secondly, I have no objection to formally entitling unit names in articles with enough qualifiers to differentiate them; for example, Indian 5th Infantry Division (British Indian Army), or if you prefer, Indian 5th Infantry Division (Indian Army (British)), though to my mind the second example has too many brackets. Whoever undertakes the task of renaming has a lot of links to fix, and I'm a little too busy at the moment. HLGallon ( talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the person who split the Indian Army article into two creating the British Indian Army. I am not sure it should be done for untis because that logic leads to two articles for 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles), which I think is a nonsense. If Indian Army sources commonly consider the history of regiments to span both sides of independence then they should be left as on article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
mrg3105 in 1948 the southern Irish government changed from the Irish Free State to the Republic of Ireland, should the 3rd Infantry Battalion (Ireland) of the Irish Army be broken into two articles? France changed from the Fourth to the Fifth French Republic, in 1958 should all French army units be disambiguated by state, and initially after independence the Indian state was a dominion it became the Republic of India in 1950, so should there be three articles for each Indian unit disambiguated by state? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So now you are making judgements about what is the creation of a new state. It seems to me that this is rapidly becoming a matter of opinion and not a simple rule. 11 years years ago there was a serious constitutional debate in SA if the UK Parliament had to pass an act in regards to the legitimacy of the new democratic state of South Africa or if Mandla's government should simply declare its statehood -- in the end the South African government chose the latter. So when exactly would you consider that SA became the state it is today? In the case of India, India has been a member of the UN since, 30 October 1945 so what is the difference between the three forms of government that it has had since then and the governments of France? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Typically, the British handed over to a new government not a new state. This is because as often as not the British first created the system they wanted to hand over to, and then simply installed the first generation of new rules who might or might not choose to continue with that form of government. For example in the case of India, the difference between the day before the Dominion of India and the day after would not have been great as the civil service, judges, railway staff, etc all stayed in place. The enabling act, the Indian Independence Act 1947, specifically say that:
- 10. (1) The provision of this Act keeping in force provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall not continue in force the provisions of that Act relating to appointments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India by the secretary of State, or the provisions of that Act relating to the reservation of posts.
- (2) Every person who-
- (a) having been appointed by the Secretary of State, or Secretary of State in Council, to a civil service of the Crown in India continues on the after the appointed day to serve under the Government of either of the new Dominions or of any Province or Part thereof; ...
- ...
- 11. (1) The orders to be made by the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act shall make provision for the divisions of the Indian armed forces of His Majesty between the new dominions, and for the command and governance of those forces until the division is completed.
- (2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces-
- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but
- (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.
As far as I can tell this does not say that the army was disbanded but that they remain under the command of the Governor-General ( Louis Mountbatten until command was handed over to the new governments. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
However, a GG is not the CinC of the armed forces, so where the Act was concerned it only referred to the functional powers required of GG in his interaction with the military commander, and that would be the new CinC of the Indian forces after 1947, which would be the Ministry of Defence under a Cabinet Minister in August 1947, and not the GG (it had been a Defence Department in British administration since 1938). On August 15, 1947, each Service was placed under its own Commander-in-Chief. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces vested in the President.
This is because the combat support units required technical Corps personnel, and these came from, and departed to the UK.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This may not be the right place to voice it, but it seems to me that unit articles need to be named for initial unit name with redirects to other names, and not most convenient or famous, since that may change in future. E.g The Sirmoor Battalion (India Army) and not 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles).-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The image for the 1st Armoured Division sign / flash should be corrected. The white rhinoceros is correct, but the surrounding red triangle dates only from the early 1980s. The World War II insignia was the rhino on a plain black rectangle. HLGallon ( talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Sixdivlogo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
To quell any doubt I am not the Simon Trew the military historian at Sandhurst. I think only he and I share that name; we have an unspoken agreement, he doesn't pay my debts and I don't get his book advances.
I have been adding a few Normandy articles and I got here for checking if anything could be wikilinked. Indeed a lot could, but I presume deliberately it is not? Some advice would be appreciated, I am quite happy to link it up, but if you all think it is better left not linked, that's fine too. The Normandy articles vary enormously in their quality, but personally I don't see that has bearing on whether to link; the thing is to improve the article, not the link.
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. And at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them.
SimonTrew ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently begun work on an article about Beauman Division, which was an improvised formation in the Battle of France 1940. Should it be included here? Alansplodge ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Edits were made to these sections to indicate the final command to which the divisions were subordinated at the end of the war. The edits are sourced to Joslen's work. An IP editor reverted the edits.
IP editor -- take note this follows the format used for the infantry and airborne division sections. Do not remove sourced material without obtaining consensus on the talk page.
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
expanding the size of, and the number of divisions, available to the armyThe number of divisions is one way to count the size of the army, so I changed this to
expanding the number of divisions available to the army. If "manpower" or something else is meant by size, I think that should be made more explicit.
German annexation of the remnants of the Czechoslovakian stateChanged to "occupation" as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was only partially annexed, a detail that is outside the scope of this article. "Invasion" would also work if you think that's preferable.
Early commando successes prompted the expansion of this force, and resulted in an additional requirement for a glider force of 10,000 men to be createdWhat does the source(s) say, Operation Colossus or other successes? Either way, do not use an easter egg link. Perhaps " Operation Colossus and other early commando successes..."
The war establishment, the on-paper strength, was set at 12,148 men, with a large number of automatic weapons assigned to the division. The establishment called for 7,171 bolt-action Lee Enfield rifles, 6,504 Sten submachine guns, 966 Bren light machine guns, and 46 Vickers machine guns.I don't understand, what is "establishment" referring to here?
were not intended to be comparable to 'field' formations such as infantry divisionsNot sure what this means, maybe cut this and merge the first part of this sentence into the preceding one.
2 light tanksis this a typo? ( t · c) buidhe 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The cavalry division was to be formed from Territorial Army units, following the outbreak of the war.Sentence needs a rewrite. Was the order issued before or after the start of the war? I'm not sure. Better, give the exact date.
The division did not become operational until...I would avoid this phrasing, as it implies that the date is late. It's simpler just to say "The division became operational on XX date". ( t · c) buidhe 23:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
To justify the revert that was recently made, the inclusion of Southern Rhodesia was not supported by Joslen (which is currently the only work cited for that division). For most of the supporting arms, he does not identify the area they were recruited. However, most of the King's African Rifle battalions recruiting areas are mentioned. The following KAR battalions were in the division at some point, even briefly: 1/2nd, 2/2nd, 2nd (Nyasaland), 1/4th, 3/4th, 4/4th, 4th (Uganda), 5th (Kenya), 3/6th, 11th (Kenya), 13th (Nyasaland), 22nd (Nyasaland), 26th (Tanganyika Territory), 31st (Nyasaland), 34th (Uganda), 36th (Tanganyika Territory), 44th (Uganda), 46th Tanganyika Territory. In addition to these battalions, the division also incorporated the 1st Battalion, Northern Rhodesia Regiment.
Nothing in Joslen outright states troops also came from Southern Rhodeisa, so we will need a RS to include that. I have made a brief search, but was unable to find anything on my first pass. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | List of British divisions in World War II is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 1, 2022. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of British divisions in World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are units here supposed to be listed twice? Like the two London Divisions (1st London, 2nd London, 56th (London) and 47th (London)). Also the 42nd Infantry and 42nd Armour.-- Caranorn 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is an article called 1st (African) Division which was redesignated as the 11th (African) Division. The article currently says "On 23 November 1941 the division headquarters ceased to exist."
However a British Army Division numbered 11 and often called the "11th East African Division"( second paragraph) fought in Burma.
So I was the 11th reconstituted at some later date and if so should we include that in the article 1st (African) Division along the lines of
Or should we create a new article along the lines of the 81st (West Africa) Division. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add summary histories for the divisions listed on this page. While practically every division listed has an article of its own with information in depth, I think it would be a useful addition to this page to have summary histories for all the divisions available at a glance.
As this list is a "mature" article, I don't wish to make a format change to the information without a discussion first. An example of what I'd like to do:
The summaries would also be provided for less well-known units that don't have their own articles, like the 12th Division of the
Sudan Defence Force.
Request comments on this proposal. Thanks--
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a significant degree of confusion in the article titles, and also in the claims made by Indian and Pakistani articles to lineage of the British Indian Army.
Where the part of the division title is not Arm of Service, it needs to be in (London) form. All need to have the (United Kingdom) added.
British Divisions in World War II
The problem of lineage claims came to my attention via the 7th Indian Infantry Division wich has inexplicably been linked to the Pakistani Army.
However, the issue is much greater with the Indian Army divisional articles.
list of Indian divisions in WWII.
Needless to say no Army belonging to a state's government which had not yet come into existence before 1945 can claim unit participation in the Second World War. Besides this rather obvious fact, when the equipment and personnel of the former British Indian Army divisions were transferred to the newly created national armies of India and Pakistan, the British units had already been disbanded by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the new Indian and Pakistani divisions were brought into being by the Acts of Parliaments of their two respective governments. No campaign participation or awards can be claimed by these new divisions, and no lineage exists although I understand that many had adopted British Army formation badges for their own insignia.
Then again, I could be wrong, but I would like to be shown the reason if that is the case.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
::::At the time of the partition of India there were ten Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army, each regiment consisting of a number of battalions. As a result of negotiations between the Nepalese, British and Indian Governments (known as the ‘Tripartite Agreement’) four of these regiments, each of two battalions were transferred to the British Army, the remainder staying with the new Indian Army. [1]
My two pennyworth. Firstly, to avoid confusion, units must be referred to in historical articles by the title by which they were known or commonly referred to at the time. Secondly, I have no objection to formally entitling unit names in articles with enough qualifiers to differentiate them; for example, Indian 5th Infantry Division (British Indian Army), or if you prefer, Indian 5th Infantry Division (Indian Army (British)), though to my mind the second example has too many brackets. Whoever undertakes the task of renaming has a lot of links to fix, and I'm a little too busy at the moment. HLGallon ( talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the person who split the Indian Army article into two creating the British Indian Army. I am not sure it should be done for untis because that logic leads to two articles for 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles), which I think is a nonsense. If Indian Army sources commonly consider the history of regiments to span both sides of independence then they should be left as on article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
mrg3105 in 1948 the southern Irish government changed from the Irish Free State to the Republic of Ireland, should the 3rd Infantry Battalion (Ireland) of the Irish Army be broken into two articles? France changed from the Fourth to the Fifth French Republic, in 1958 should all French army units be disambiguated by state, and initially after independence the Indian state was a dominion it became the Republic of India in 1950, so should there be three articles for each Indian unit disambiguated by state? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So now you are making judgements about what is the creation of a new state. It seems to me that this is rapidly becoming a matter of opinion and not a simple rule. 11 years years ago there was a serious constitutional debate in SA if the UK Parliament had to pass an act in regards to the legitimacy of the new democratic state of South Africa or if Mandla's government should simply declare its statehood -- in the end the South African government chose the latter. So when exactly would you consider that SA became the state it is today? In the case of India, India has been a member of the UN since, 30 October 1945 so what is the difference between the three forms of government that it has had since then and the governments of France? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Typically, the British handed over to a new government not a new state. This is because as often as not the British first created the system they wanted to hand over to, and then simply installed the first generation of new rules who might or might not choose to continue with that form of government. For example in the case of India, the difference between the day before the Dominion of India and the day after would not have been great as the civil service, judges, railway staff, etc all stayed in place. The enabling act, the Indian Independence Act 1947, specifically say that:
- 10. (1) The provision of this Act keeping in force provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall not continue in force the provisions of that Act relating to appointments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India by the secretary of State, or the provisions of that Act relating to the reservation of posts.
- (2) Every person who-
- (a) having been appointed by the Secretary of State, or Secretary of State in Council, to a civil service of the Crown in India continues on the after the appointed day to serve under the Government of either of the new Dominions or of any Province or Part thereof; ...
- ...
- 11. (1) The orders to be made by the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act shall make provision for the divisions of the Indian armed forces of His Majesty between the new dominions, and for the command and governance of those forces until the division is completed.
- (2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces-
- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but
- (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.
As far as I can tell this does not say that the army was disbanded but that they remain under the command of the Governor-General ( Louis Mountbatten until command was handed over to the new governments. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
However, a GG is not the CinC of the armed forces, so where the Act was concerned it only referred to the functional powers required of GG in his interaction with the military commander, and that would be the new CinC of the Indian forces after 1947, which would be the Ministry of Defence under a Cabinet Minister in August 1947, and not the GG (it had been a Defence Department in British administration since 1938). On August 15, 1947, each Service was placed under its own Commander-in-Chief. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces vested in the President.
This is because the combat support units required technical Corps personnel, and these came from, and departed to the UK.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This may not be the right place to voice it, but it seems to me that unit articles need to be named for initial unit name with redirects to other names, and not most convenient or famous, since that may change in future. E.g The Sirmoor Battalion (India Army) and not 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles).-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The image for the 1st Armoured Division sign / flash should be corrected. The white rhinoceros is correct, but the surrounding red triangle dates only from the early 1980s. The World War II insignia was the rhino on a plain black rectangle. HLGallon ( talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Sixdivlogo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
To quell any doubt I am not the Simon Trew the military historian at Sandhurst. I think only he and I share that name; we have an unspoken agreement, he doesn't pay my debts and I don't get his book advances.
I have been adding a few Normandy articles and I got here for checking if anything could be wikilinked. Indeed a lot could, but I presume deliberately it is not? Some advice would be appreciated, I am quite happy to link it up, but if you all think it is better left not linked, that's fine too. The Normandy articles vary enormously in their quality, but personally I don't see that has bearing on whether to link; the thing is to improve the article, not the link.
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. And at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them.
SimonTrew ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently begun work on an article about Beauman Division, which was an improvised formation in the Battle of France 1940. Should it be included here? Alansplodge ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Edits were made to these sections to indicate the final command to which the divisions were subordinated at the end of the war. The edits are sourced to Joslen's work. An IP editor reverted the edits.
IP editor -- take note this follows the format used for the infantry and airborne division sections. Do not remove sourced material without obtaining consensus on the talk page.
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
expanding the size of, and the number of divisions, available to the armyThe number of divisions is one way to count the size of the army, so I changed this to
expanding the number of divisions available to the army. If "manpower" or something else is meant by size, I think that should be made more explicit.
German annexation of the remnants of the Czechoslovakian stateChanged to "occupation" as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was only partially annexed, a detail that is outside the scope of this article. "Invasion" would also work if you think that's preferable.
Early commando successes prompted the expansion of this force, and resulted in an additional requirement for a glider force of 10,000 men to be createdWhat does the source(s) say, Operation Colossus or other successes? Either way, do not use an easter egg link. Perhaps " Operation Colossus and other early commando successes..."
The war establishment, the on-paper strength, was set at 12,148 men, with a large number of automatic weapons assigned to the division. The establishment called for 7,171 bolt-action Lee Enfield rifles, 6,504 Sten submachine guns, 966 Bren light machine guns, and 46 Vickers machine guns.I don't understand, what is "establishment" referring to here?
were not intended to be comparable to 'field' formations such as infantry divisionsNot sure what this means, maybe cut this and merge the first part of this sentence into the preceding one.
2 light tanksis this a typo? ( t · c) buidhe 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The cavalry division was to be formed from Territorial Army units, following the outbreak of the war.Sentence needs a rewrite. Was the order issued before or after the start of the war? I'm not sure. Better, give the exact date.
The division did not become operational until...I would avoid this phrasing, as it implies that the date is late. It's simpler just to say "The division became operational on XX date". ( t · c) buidhe 23:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
To justify the revert that was recently made, the inclusion of Southern Rhodesia was not supported by Joslen (which is currently the only work cited for that division). For most of the supporting arms, he does not identify the area they were recruited. However, most of the King's African Rifle battalions recruiting areas are mentioned. The following KAR battalions were in the division at some point, even briefly: 1/2nd, 2/2nd, 2nd (Nyasaland), 1/4th, 3/4th, 4/4th, 4th (Uganda), 5th (Kenya), 3/6th, 11th (Kenya), 13th (Nyasaland), 22nd (Nyasaland), 26th (Tanganyika Territory), 31st (Nyasaland), 34th (Uganda), 36th (Tanganyika Territory), 44th (Uganda), 46th Tanganyika Territory. In addition to these battalions, the division also incorporated the 1st Battalion, Northern Rhodesia Regiment.
Nothing in Joslen outright states troops also came from Southern Rhodeisa, so we will need a RS to include that. I have made a brief search, but was unable to find anything on my first pass. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)