Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Northern France campaign
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
American logistics in the Northern France campaign[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
American logistics in the Northern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I split the article on US logistics in Overlord into two. This is the second part, covering the Northern France campaign - the breakout from Normandy and the pursuit to the German frontier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Red Ball 1944 september 20-fr.svg the source website looks like copyvio, unless the map is public domain. Is there another source that could be cited?
- The topographic map comes from PD sources. The source website map comes from Ruppenthal, which is also PD. [1] What particular concerns do you have? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Other images, layout is fine (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, great work as always. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- in the lead, the Allied invasion of northwest Europe during World War II that commenced on D-Day, 6 June 1944. On 25 July 1944, the First United States Army began Operation Cobra. Perhaps, "the Allied invasion of northwest Europe during World War II that commenced on D-Day, 6 June 1944. After the Allies secured a beachhead in Normandy, on 25 July 1944, the First United States Army began Operation Cobra..."
- in the lead, Senior commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities. Perhaps, "Throughout the campaign, senior Allied commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities."
That is too harsh. Re-worded to "At critical junctures in the campaign, senior American commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- in the lead, While the logistical system had facilitated a great victory, these factors would be keenly felt: suggest clarify when they would be felt.
- in the Background section, the first two sentences start with "After"; suggest rewording one to vary the language
- commit more forces to the job"[18] But it was: missing full stop
- effects than Bradley's 3 August decision: I wasn't quite sure what this decision was. Was it the decision not to capture Brittany?
- The 5,000,000-US-barrel (600,000,000 l) of storage tanks were...: this seems a little awkwardly worded. Perhaps "The storage tanks had a capacity of 5,000,000-US-barrels (600,000,000 l) and were..."
- four weeks for the Navy --> US Navy?
- The line was also subject to acts of sabotage: was this by "enemy" forces, criminal elements or ?
- and the regarded them as inconvenient --> "and
theregarded them as inconvenient" - railway lines, which had been badly damaged by the Allied Air Forces. Perhaps, "railway lines, which had been badly damaged by the Allied Air Forces during earlier interdiction operations"?
- Major General Cecil R. Moore, the ETO Chief Engineer flew over: comma after "Engineer"?
- as in had not --> "as it had not"
- "lodgment" v "lodgement"
- but in July 1943, the ASF ordered: has ASF been introduced as an abbreviation at this point?
- affected the training of the personnel of motor transport units --> "affected the training of motor transport unit personnel"?
- partially trained units in the hope of their being able to complete their training in the UK --> "partially trained units in the hope they would be able to complete their training in the UK"?
- fourteen African-American truck companies had their personnel transferred to other African-American units. The intention was to replace them with Caucasian personnel: I don't quite follow here. Why wouldn't the existing trained African American transport personnel just be bolstered by a small number of Caucasian personnel from other units, rather than be replaced entirely? Was this a consequence of segregation? Seems counterproductive to say the least
- Yes, counterproductive to say the very least. Racial segregation in the United States Armed Forces created a myriad of problems. It would have been far more efficient to assign personnel without regard to race, but the idea of living in close quarters with African-Americans was repugnant to many white Americans. I have noted that the Army was segregated, and added a link to the article on racial segregation in case the reader is unaware of this. If you're interested, the Army published a whole book on the subject, which you can downlaod for free here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice work, I have added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- entered the Grande Rade in 16 July --> "on 16 July"
- sources: all appear reliable to me based on authors or publishers and all information in the article appears to be referenced (no action required)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Whew! Heck of an article. Ping me once all or most of AR's points are cleared - so I won't be repeated issues already picked up - and I'll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Your turn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- "The advance was much faster than expected". Possibly 'The advance was then much faster than expected'?
- "Bradley fixated on Brest, which was only intended to be a port of reception for troops, and Saint-Malo, a minor port, whereas Patton focused on Lorient and Quiberon Bay." It may be worth at this point briefly indicating out what Lorient and Quiberon Bay were to be used for, as you have with Brest and Saint-Malo.
- "because the approaches were not cleared." "not cleared" → 'could not be cleared' may make things clearer for the reader. (By avoiding begging a question.)
- "Brigadier General Pleas B. Rogers's Base Section No. 5, which had been specifically created for the role." It is not clear what role that is.
- "from the beaches to Laval, 135 miles (217 km) distant, and then to Le Mans, another 175 miles (282 km) away." Is there a typo in there? Le mans is barely any further from the beaches than Laval.
- "receipts had fallen 97,510 US gallons (369,100 l) short of its 450,000 US gallons (1,700,000 l) requirements." Should "requirements" not be singular?
- "Breaks in the line on 29 August forced truck units to draw MT80 from Saint-Lô, 80 miles (130 km) further away." Further away from where? At the last mention in the text the pipeline had only reached St Lo.
- "in July 1943, the Army Service Forces ordered 67,000 to be produced in 1944. The Truman Committee considered this wasteful, unnecessarily reducing the number of civilian trucks that could be built. Despite the adverse political pressure, the Army pressed on with the production program, but only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944." This doesn't really explain the shortage. If "the Army pressed on with the production program" for "67,000", how come "only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944."? Also 2,788 a month is an annual rate of 33,000, or half the required rate, which may be worth explicitly stating for the hard of math.
- "Ordnance personnel noted instances of vehicles that had been sabotaged." Any suggestions as to by whom?
- "SHAEF made available an allocation of air transport capable of delivering up to 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) per day to the Le Mans area" Is it known where the supplies were flown from?
- "named after Junior Van Noy, an engineer posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in the Battle of Finschhafen". This seems not to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" to me.
- Link Granville.
- "It could be supported by ports that were captured" Possibly 'It could be supported by ports that had been captured', to make it clear that this was the case?
- "once it was beyond the range of fighter cover" → 'once the American advance was beyond the range of fighter cover'.
- "Historian Roland Ruppenthal". 'The historian Roland Ruppenthal' avoids false title.
A cracking article. Good explanations of complex topics, and excellent prose. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's better. A classic. Reads better than most chapter length treatments in books on the US in NW Europe 1944-45. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]
I reviewed this one at GAN, so there's probably not a whole lot I'm gonna catch here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Background
- "and unable to berth vessels drawing more than 14 to 15 feet (4.3 to 4.6 m) at high water" - Link to Draft (hull) or something similar, as draft is a bit of a technical term.
- Link Seine at the first mention, not the later ones.
- POL
- "The War Office agreed to supply 221,000 per month," - Is there a link for War Office here, it's the only mention in the article I believe.
That's all I've got, I guess I caught most of my points in the GA review. Excellent article, and none of these three points keep me from supporting now. Hog Farm Bacon 02:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.