Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2022 [1].
American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]
Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support from Iazyges[edit]
- Reviewed this at A-Class, happy to Support it for FA. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Got here. Non-milhist member comments...
Lede
- maybe mention France Belgium somewhere
- failure to order adequate quantities in the mistaken belief that the war would end before it was required - before they were required
Background
- invasion of Normandy on D-Day, - add date, this section mentions dates but no years - doesn't even "mention the war"
- Normandy lodgment area in November - previous year?
- Changed to "two months later"
- AS American forces confronted - As
- confronted the defences of the - defenses
Supply depots
- develop a maintenance area in the vicinity of Rennes, Vitré, Laval, Segré and Châteaubriant - is this just one maintenance area in vicinity of all those places or one in each?
- but Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris - why?
- around Antwerp, but the - add in Belgium seeing diff country now
- but the British would not agree to this - why?
- This prompted in a halt to shipments to - "in" intentional?
- depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections - wlink Oise
- Major disruption of the supply system was causes by - caused by
- Representatives from the Army Service Forces studied - add (ASF)
- Base Sections - any link? There's this but it's iffy?
Winter clothing
- and pink trousers tended - wlink Pinks and greens
- required frequent washing, but was difficult to iron, - remove comma before "but" if this is one message, or 'and' was difficult to iron
- A shrink-resistant cotton lining meant that it could be worn with or without undergarments - does that mean no shirt or nothing under shirt?
- Yes. See picture at right. Suggestions for re-phrasing welcome.
British battle dress
- Yes. See picture at right. Suggestions for re-phrasing welcome.
- Meanwhile, in the United States the Quartermaster Corps had - dab to United States Army Quartermaster Corps?
- just as warm at both 0 and 20 °F - both? range?
- where cold climate winter clothing - maybe hyphenate cold-climate
- through the minor ports in Landing Ships, Tank, (LSTs). - is second comma right?
- Seventh Army, which was supported - move wlink to here Footwear
- 900,000 pairs of galoshes - wlink (are these same as overshoes mentioned elsewhere?)
Footwear
- cushion-soled socks - what they made of if not wool?
- War Department - wlink United States Department of War?
- shoes nor the combat boots were waterproof or water resistant. - or even water resistant
- However, only Seventh Army was - the
Medical
- The winter of 1944–1945 in Northwestern Europe was usually cold and wet - unusually?
- the daily minimum was seldom below freezing - seldom above freezing?
- A cold front then blanketed the front, - any way to avoid 2 different fronts?
- Eisenhower decided that logistical situation had - the logistical
- In contrast, the British and Canadian armies reported only 206 cases of cold injury - insert 'together' (ie not each?)
Ammunition
- The principal causes of the shortage of artillery ammunition in the ETO in 1944 varied - dot points include 1945
- American tactics relied heavily on fire support - wlink fire support?
- were offloaded. The tonnage unloaded peaked - what is difference? offloading is transferring to somewhere after being unloaded?
- used in the Sherman tank, and - wlink
- and yellow for smoke on gray - yellow on gray for smoke
- for 90-days at a time to help - hyphen needed?
- In some cases, shortages could be alleviated - meant to be new para?
- Large numbers of women ... - wlink Rosie the Riveter
Rations
- wlink United States military ration#Field Rations during World War II (or the individuals already linked are enough?)
- Although commodity loaded ships came - hyphen per elsewhere
- blocked off so they could be used for open storage so the contents - avoid 2x "so"? blocked off to be used for open storage so the contents
- reefer ships arrived carrying perishables - arrived from the US?
- cars could be cleaned, cooled and inspected by the Veterinary Corps. - insert 'then' before "inspected" to avoid ambiguity ie the inspector didn't do the cleaning
- SS Great Republic - wlink USS Pictor (AF-54)?
Liquid fuels
- Colonel Elmer E. Barnes recommended that a figure of 207 long tons (210 t) per division slice - remove "that"?
- In was uncertain as to whether this volume - It was
- Port-en-Bessin - wlink Port-en-Bessin-Huppain
- Already linked.
Solid fuels
- Granville - wlink Granville, Manche
Outcome
- until the port of Antwerp was opened on 28 November no permanent - add year here
Notes
- Aubin 2014, pp. 131. - only one page?
- Balmer - author 4 typo Williams
Consistencies
- Northwestern Europe v northwest Europe v North West Europe
- overstretched v over-stretched
- Caption: US Navy Seabees loading ammunition at Roscoff - wlink Seabees and Roscoff
Misc
- talking re feet and footwear there is no mention of snow coverage (as in images)? Ie wet feet not just when rain
- Jenny, did you blip here? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- update link in Siegfried Line campaign navbox to avoid redirect link
- add Category:Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine?
That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks. JennyOz (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi JennyOz, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again Gog, I've been watching changes, waiting for image review mostly. I have a few tiny things that are new since my first comments for Hawkeye7,
- In preparation for operations in northwest Europe - N
- Andrew T. McNamara has new article so can now have authorlink
- Hugh M. Cole new source - authorlink
- chaired by Brigadier General Royal B. Lord concluded - already introduced, perhaps just General Lord (or is intentional)?
No more from me, looking forward to s'porting. JennyOz (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Source review from Indy beetle – pass[edit]
General comments
- Just a point of curiosity, but I presume this isn't called "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" to differentiate it from American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign?
- Originally there was an article "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" but I split it in two to avoid concerns about the article being too large. Several editors have opined that the readers would be better-served by one really large article than two fairly large ones, as readers interested in the subject will read the whole thing anyway, but ones looking for certain information will zap to the section they are interested in, and splitting may make it harder to find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- The US Army demonstrated its ability to learn from its own experiences and to adapt to changing circumstances.[121] Many of the problems encountered during the Siegfried Line campaign in October and November could have been anticipated, and time was lost as increasingly higher echelons responded and developed solutions.[120] These two claims appear to fall under WP:RSOPINION and thus should be attributed in-text accordingly, particularly in the second sentence. "Could have been anticipated" is always going to be a somewhat subjective claim.
- They therefore acted simultaneously as base, depot and issue depots. Should "base" and "depot" be plural?
Spotchecks
- Ref 18 - (Moses et al. 1945, pp. 33–38.) Appears to support both claims/paragraphs. I do note, you wrote Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris while source literally ascribes that decision to his office, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (p. 36). I imagine you know more about how these official reports like to word things so I'll defer to you on whether it is best to say "Eisenhower" or "the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force". For citation clarity, I would also recommend breaking up the citations with expansive page ranges (33-38) to smaller page ranges attached directly to the sentences in these paragraphs which they support, if workable.
- Ref 56 - (MacDonald 1963, pp. 411–412.) Both claims supported.
- Ref 81 - (Gropman 1996, pp. 134–135) Good.
- Ref 82 - (Gropman 1996, p. 95.) Good for the claim Munitions production peaked in the last quarter of 1943,, but it would be preferable if this was a point made explicitly in source text, rather than by looking at a line on a chart, due to WP:SYNTH concerns.
- Ref 115 (Smithsonian Magazine) Good.
-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think we're good here. Most of the sources are official publications, including some declassified assessments. Others are published by reputable publishers. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Support by CPA[edit]
For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.
- I see litres and tonnes I think it might be a good idea to re-read the article and remove the British English spots here and there. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed the litres. Raised a discussion regarding the tonnes at Template talk:Convert#Deadweight tonnage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per MOS:DATETIES all the dates should be MM/DD/YYYY instead of DD/MM/YYYY.
- MOS:DATETIES:
articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:DATETIES:
- "German forces beyond the Seine" Add here River.
- WP:NCRIVER says to follow the common usage, which here is to omit "river". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Class II and IV depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections" Add here departments.
- "have the breast cargo pockets.[30])" I think it looks nicer if the citation is put after the round bracket.
- "and August 1944 55,000 long tons (56,000 t)" Per MOS:NUMNOTES avoid akward juxtapositions.
- "air and sea in January, 29,743 in February" Can you rephrase this sentence? I got confused when I first read this I thought you meant January 29 and 743 in February.
- "The main weapon of the divisions was the 105 mm howitzer" Compound adjective here and convert the unit?
- "It was a similar story with the 155 mm howitzers" Same as above?
- "plentiful in lieu of field artillery.[76][71]" Re-order the refs here.
- "compatible with the 75mm gun M2–M6" Compound adjective here.
- "production of 8 inch gun, 8 inch howitzer, 155 mm gun, 155 mm howitzer and 4.5 inch gun ammunition" This looks like compound adjectives here?
- "from the 155 mm gun and 155 mm howitzer, through to the 8 inch howitzer, 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer" Compound adjectives here and convert the units?
- "the 75 mm gun, although the NYPE gave priority to shipping the 76 mm gun version" Compound adjectives here.
- "became available for the 76 mm gun, but less than two rounds per gun per month were received before March 1945. Shermans armed with the 105 mm howitzer" Same as above.
- "likely to be transferred to the South Pacific" Link South Pacific.
- Just my twopenn'orth, but this seems to be getting into MOS:OVERLINK territory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- "1,000,000 discarded or abandoned jerricans" --> "1 milion discarded or abandoned jerricans"?
- "this was burned to form a roadblock.[119][118]" Re-order the refs here.
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
- I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
- "The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
- "the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
- "Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
- "and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article Battle of Metz.
- It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
- "ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
- "105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
- Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Support from John[edit]
Great article! I made some small copyedits, here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115. ISBN 1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced? John (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for digging in and for fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.John (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Support from Ian[edit]
Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ian, is that a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.