Talk:American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAmerican transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
December 22, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 6, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 18, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that ducks frequently carried more than two and a half tons during the Siegfried Line campaign?
Current status: Featured article

Mulberry harbour[edit]

expected to see some mention of this in context of problems getting sufficient tonnage landed across beaches.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The American Mulberry had already been abandoned in June. Details are in American logistics in the Northern France campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The background section says "Under the Operation Overlord plan, US forces would be supported over the Omaha and Utah landing beaches and the port of Cherbourg in Normandy" and the delay in taking and using Cherbourg and that "the beaches consistently failed to meet their targets, averaging only 20,000 to 25,000 long tons (20,000 to 25,000 t) per day" but the plan envisaged the Mulberry. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline[edit]

The article uses the word "deadlined" repeatedly starting with "Over 15,000 vehicles were deadlined, awaiting repairs or parts." This usage is new and unfamiliar to me – meaning inoperable, unserviceable, unusable, off the road, out of action, &c. The article links to Wiktionary but that's not a reliable source and neither of its references support the usage. The OED has a different military meaning ("A line drawn around a military prison, beyond which a prisoner is liable to be shot down. Originally U.S.") but not the article's usage. As this seems to be US military slang, I suggest amendment per MOS:JARGON. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not slang; it is official usage. The Wiktionary provides the definition "(military) To render an item non-mission-capable; to ground an aircraft, etc" It was there to enable readers to look it up, not as a reference.
Following up, I see that Tvx1 changed "deadlined" to "inoperable" and then Hawkeye7 changed it to "unserviceable". They both work for me and so it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, being curious about the original term, I find it defined in the Dictionary of United States Army Terms, "Any major end item of authorized equipment charged to a using unit or agency which has been removed from operation or immediate ooperational readiness because of actual or potential mechanical, electrical or safety device failure. It does not include equipment scheduled for routine prevention maintenance or inspection."
It comes from the old meaning of "dead" as "inactive", from which we get expressions like dead rubber. "Line" comes from another old meaning, "queue". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I find that we have some amusing pictures, (right). I'm still looking for a detailed origin of the term as the prison camp usage doesn't seem quite the same.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That meaning is believed to come from Andersonville Prison. See that article for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical paragraph[edit]

I've stumbled upon the following paragraph in this article, which doesn't make sense to me, specifically its last sentence:

"Barge traffic on the Seine was obstructed by a pair of ponton bridges. They had to be opened to allow barges through, but this interrupted motor traffic. At Le Manoir there was a railway bridge built by the British that was too low to permit barge traffic. The bridge was raised in October, but then the river rose in November as the Seine flooded, reducing clearance below the minimum again. The river rose so high it was feared that the bridge would be washed away, and consideration was given to moving British supplies from Normandy via Paris instead."

The Seine river actually IS the inland waterway used to ship goods from Normandy via Paris, so a blocked Seine cannot be circumvented "from Normandy via Paris instead". What was the actual alternative considered, if any?


Tvx1 18:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear that I was talking about re-routing railway traffic. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]