Talk:56th (London) Infantry Division

Military history: British / European / World War II

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:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Divisional insigna

Should it not be a Black Cat? The 56th was called the "Black Cat" division throughout the Sicily and Italy campaigns in WW2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.80.74 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a Black Cat. There is a book 'Black Cats at War' which was published by the Imperial War Museum that has the best version you are going to get of the 2nd World War exploits of this Division. And they were certainly more than Infantry with the Artillery Regiment being particularly noteworthy. (Victor Middlesex (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Victor, did you read the lede paragraph? Clearly states two different insignia in the two world wars. This was a deliberate policy. See, for example, 47th (1/2nd London) Division in WWI and 47th (London) Infantry Division Bow Bells in WWII or 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division, White Rose of Yorkshire in WWI, Polar Bear in WWII. Hamish59 (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This should probably be merged with British 56th (1/1st London) Division. In all liklihood, that article should be merged into this one, but I'm open to other opinions. Thoughts, anyone? Carom 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure (as a user) why you would want to merge these divisions. Divisions are large units that ought to have a page each. Otherwise you have one unwieldy page where you list the accomplishments of one followed by the accomplishments of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.17.23 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err. Already has been. The original post was in 2006 when, I suspect, there were two separate articles for the division in WWI and another for the same division in WWII. Hamish59 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Units

There are many units missing as the 56th wasn't just formed of the infantry. I will hopfully collate all the units and add them. If the articles are merged as suggested above the units the formed the 56th in both wars would have to be dated from date of attachment to date of detachment. I am currently reading my Granddads diaries from that period and any useful information that I get I will hopfully find a place to add 80.47.71.164 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have been filled in subsequently. Hamish59 (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 56th (London) Infantry Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 56th (London) Infantry Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402123530/http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/territorial-army-reserve-forces-and-home-guard/HAN5243623 to http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/territorial-army-reserve-forces-and-home-guard/HAN5243623

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]