Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Normandy Campaign/archive1
- 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [1].
British logistics in the Normandy Campaign[edit]
This article is about the British Army's Normandy campaign in World War II. Wrote it on my summer vacation last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]
Look who've here? Welcome back mate, may I ask you which kinda English this article uses? British, American or Australian English? It wouldn't suprise me that it is written in Australian English. Also I'll do this one later I'd give you my comments within two days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- British English. Added a {{use British English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- an opportunity to build up reserves of supplies American build up.
- to the north to capture Antwerp Add Belgium after Antwerp.
- British Guards Armoured Division liberated Brussels Same as above.
- logistical units had learned from practice American learned.
- developed plans for Operation Rankin No link for Operation Rankin?
- In the image File:Invasion_Build-up-_Preparations_For_the_D-day_Landings,_UK, A line of army trucks awaits collection along a tree-lined lane or path in preparation for Overlord First American line/lined and second American trucks.
- Brigadier L. L. H. McKillop; and a Deputy Adjutant General (DAG), Brigadier Cyril Lloyd No links for L. L. H. McKillop and Cyril Lloyd?
- Brigadiers are not presumed notable. Lloyd became a major general after the war, and was involved in the establishment of West Dean College, so he is presumed notable, but has no article. I created articles on Miles Graham and Gerry Fielden for this article, but not McKillop or LLoyd, as I lacked sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- A Headquarters (HQ) Line of Communications Is this an official name if not then I don't reckon it's bad to change line into queue?
- That's an official name; "line" as in "line of communications" does not mean "queue". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- under 11 Line of Communications Area when Second Army Same as above.
- would be gradually built up to a fortnight's Again American built up.
- charged with responsibility for regulating the build up of vehicles Same as above.
- were employed by Vice Admiral Sir Philip Vian's American Vice Admiral.
- stores had to anchor up to 5 miles (8.0 km) from shore The nought isn't necessary.
- This sentence destroying 100,000 imperial gallons (450,000 l) uses only imperial gallons but this sentence "which was about 200,000 imperial gallons (910,000 l; 240,000 US gal)" uses imperial and US gallons.
- when it arrived, 11 Line of Communications Area Same as above if it's not an official name then uses queue instead of line.
- Again, "line of communications" is a military term; here is is also the name of the unit, hence capitalisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is it "Mediterranean Theatre" or just "Mediterranean theatre" because there're two different theatres.
- De-capped the second.
- supply for the 5.5-inch guns to 30 days' No metric units?
- consumed tens of thousands of tons of steel This sentence uses three ofs isn't that too much?
- tankers up to 5,000 gross register tons (14,000 m3) could discharge Link both "gross register tons" and m³.
- using Tombolas, floating ship-to-shore lines American lines.
- Ammunition Depot arrived and began coordinating the stores American coordinating.
- In the image File:Supplying_Allied_Forces_After_D_Day,_July_1944_B7186.jpg GMC two-and-a-half-ton 6 × 6 trucks (CCKW-353) parked on expanded metal standings, taking on fuel supplies American trucks.
- When HQ Line of Communications assumed administrative command on 13 July Same as above.
- An exception was 1,400 Austin K5 three-ton trucks American trucks.
- While the railway lines in northern France and Belgium Another American lines.
- Yet another meaning of "line". In this case it means "A connected series of public conveyances, as a roadbed or railway track". See List of railway lines in Great Britain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- 800 long tons (810 t) of POL and 300 long tons (300 t) The "(300 t)" isn't necessary. There is one already previously.
- much less than of the lines south of the Seine American lines and unlink Seine there is one already previously.
- had provided an opportunity to build up reserves American built up.
- Changed to "accumulate"
- had a draught of 2.90 metres (9 ft 6 in) "2.90" is a little to accurate maybe remove the nought 'cause it looks in my opinion a little bit unnecessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Review[edit]
- Fantastic well researched article which breathes a new fresh perspective ino the Normandy campaign in 1944. When it comes to warfare logistics in general is definitely overlooked. An inspiration for future articles on same subject and a good link to related articles. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources review[edit]
- No spotchecks carried out
- Formats: the inclusion of a retrieval date for the Coles & Weinburg source seems unnecessary. The similarly-sourced Ruppenthal entry does not have a retrieval date.
- No other issues. The sources are uniformly and consistently presented, and appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments by Nick-D[edit]
I reviewed this article's GAN, and am very pleased to see it here. I have the following comments:
- My main comment is that the lead doesn't match up particularly strongly with the body of the article - while the body is largely thematic, the lead is probably too focused on how the campaign played out. I'd suggest reworking the lead so it's more strongly focused on the nature of the logistics effort and the challenges which were overcome
- "while having the immediate effect of diverting British and Australian troops from the war against Germany" - not sure that the different nationalities need to be mentioned here, especially as lots of Indian troops and small numbers of NZ troops were also diverted to the Pacific
- The background section could discuss the logistics-heavy nature of the British way of war in 1944. As all formations were motorised or mechanised and the British sought to use as much firepower as possible in order to keep casualties down, this made for extensive supply needs - much in excess of the largely unmotorised German Army for instance.
- The particularly challenging nature of amphibious/expeditionary logistics and the central importance of overcoming this challenge could also be noted - the entire operation hinged on the Allies' ability to move troops and supplies into Normandy by sea at a faster rate than the Germans could by land, with their success in doing so being a major achievement
- "The RASC, the corps of the British Army responsible for most forms of supply and transport, was about 15,000 men short of its requirements." - when was this?
- Why was the port of Courseulles-sur-Mer abandoned? Was it too small to be worth the bother once over-the-beach arrangements were sorted out?
- "bypasses constructed around villages with narrow streets that were suitable for one-way traffic only" - not sure if it's worth including, but various sources say that the ring road the British Army built around Bayeux was the first such road in France
- "the Second Army employed only two of its eight infantry divisions, grounding the VIII Corps, so the transport of two could be used to help maintain the other six divisions" - this is a bit unclear - were two or six divisions active?
Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
This article is in great shape, and I had a close look at it during Milhist ACR, where nearly all of my comments were addressed. However, I think there is one area that undermines its comprehensiveness, mainly relating to the CMP, in both traffic management/control for the 150,000 vehicles in the lodgement area by late July, and PW handling, especially in the latter period when PW were not all being evacuated to the UK. I raised these at Milhist ACR, and my concerns there weren't really properly addressed. There is really nothing about main supply routes or traffic control and management, which must have been extensive. There are two small sections about PW, but no coverage of the PW handling system, what units were deployed to guard and administer PW, especially when at one point, there were 27,000 PW being held in Normandy with many employed on labouring tasks. This must have taken a considerable effort and troops to do, yet it isn't really covered at all, with no mention of any PW facilities established etc. CMP are only mentioned in relation to the fact that they were involved, and their inclusion in the beach groups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a paragraph on the activities of the provost, and I have expanded the bit about prisoners. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Review comments:
- in the lead, suggest "
specificallyespecially constructed" - in lead, why were the roadheads for those corps? Were they the lead corps of the two armies? If so, perhaps mention that?
- the "gun ammo exceeded figures" in the lead lack context, as we are not told what the base allocations were. I suggest dropping this and just saying that ammo allocations were exceeded, or alternatively expanding to explain by how much the allocations were exceeded in percentage terms.
- I thought rounds are easier to visualise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the number is meaningless. I mean, we have no idea what the rounds per gun per day were, so we don't know whether six rounds was 1%, 5% or 20%. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- As the article states, the allowance for 25-pounders was 70 rounds per gun per day, and 50 per gun per day for the five fives. The reader can easily calculate that the allowances were exceeded by 8% and 24% respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't say that. I'm struggling to see what the problem is here. The lead is a summary of the article. If you want to make a point about the overuse of artillery ammo, do it by establishing that the usage rates were X% over what was planned, instead of asking people to read the body of the article to get context for what is in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The lead says: "Ammunition usage was heavy, and exceeded the daily allocation for the 25-pounders of seventy rounds per gun per day by six rounds per gun per day, and the allowance for the 5.5-inch guns of fifty rounds per gun per day by twelve per gun per day." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- True, that is what it says now (after several attempts to resolve this issue with no substantive response) but it is too wordy and repetitive and a percentage would be an appropriate summary for the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The lead says: "Ammunition usage was heavy, and exceeded the daily allocation for the 25-pounders of seventy rounds per gun per day by six rounds per gun per day, and the allowance for the 5.5-inch guns of fifty rounds per gun per day by twelve per gun per day." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't say that. I'm struggling to see what the problem is here. The lead is a summary of the article. If you want to make a point about the overuse of artillery ammo, do it by establishing that the usage rates were X% over what was planned, instead of asking people to read the body of the article to get context for what is in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- As the article states, the allowance for 25-pounders was 70 rounds per gun per day, and 50 per gun per day for the five fives. The reader can easily calculate that the allowances were exceeded by 8% and 24% respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the number is meaningless. I mean, we have no idea what the rounds per gun per day were, so we don't know whether six rounds was 1%, 5% or 20%. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I thought rounds are easier to visualise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- link line of communication in the lead
- "The emphasis of mobility over firepower turned out to be a mistake; it soon became apparent that mobility was impossible unless the enemy's firepower was suppressed" doesn't really follow in the context. Did the British Army really prioritise mobility over firepower? In what way? How was this demonstrated? In general, I think the Background section needs some attention to make it more focussed on the logistic challenges faced by the foreshadowed lodgement force. It currently jumps around between the interwar period, WWII, Battle of France, an indeterminate period when the British Army had a higher proportion of armoured divisions, Normandy, the Western Desert Campaign etc. It needs more structure and development, and would benefit from a chronological approach to the development of British logistics. The bit about Normandy doesn't belong in the Background.
- It is in chronological order. Dropped the sentence about mobility and firepower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- The question of when it was that the British had proportionally more armoured divisions hasn't been addressed, and there is still a mention of what happened later (in Normandy) in the Background section. I mean, the article is about the Normandy operation, so why include information about what actually happened during it before you've even covered the planning for the operation? Also, what stage is "Confronted by German defences..." referring to? Is this what was done in Normandy, or is it referring to the Western Desert Campaign or Italy? If Normandy, why is it here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Moved the sentence on defences. Added "in June 1944". The point is that the British Army was more highly mechanised than its German counterpart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Its administrative doctrine→British Army administrative doctrine Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
- "logistical units
hadlearned from practice" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- It is in chronological order. Dropped the sentence about mobility and firepower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- The observations about the overall armoured to infantry ratio in the British and German armies is essentially meaningless for Normandy as it stands and should be narrowed to those engaged in the Normandy campaign. The British Army raised ~45 divisions during the war, not all of which were active at one time and they fought in various theatres. The German Army raised hundreds of divisions, scores of which were re-raised after destruction on the Eastern Front, and which fought in many theatres. The classification of divisions would vary based on being foot infantry, light, grenadier, motorised, panzer grenadier, and panzer on the German side, with some parsing on the British side based on the number of tanks and personnel carriers, halftracks etc per division. The armoured and motorised division proportion was different in each theatre (just look at the Afrika Korps versus the Eighth Army), with the largest infantry proportion in the east. Maybe limit this observation to the ratios in Normandy on D-Day to be directly relevant to this campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- For the British Army, there 21st Army Group in Normandy had three armoured divisions and nine infantry or airborne divisions. In Italy, the Eighth Army had two armoured divisions and six infantry divisions. Not much difference... but I don't have a German Orbat, so I have removed the sentence (although it is reliably sourced). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- "included 15 per cent
werein"
- is Robert Naylor likely to be notable?
- "twenty six and thirty divisions"
- the Planning section could do with something about the plans to deal with PWs, ie backload to UK
- "Usage had exceeded allocations" same observation about context
- "one point two metres"? 1.2 m?
- "replaced with 25-pounders" does this mean these artillery regiments switched to towed guns, or the 25-pounders were retrofitted to the M7s? Clarify?
- "18,000 piles 18 to 37 metres (60 to 120 ft)" long?
- "Meanwhile, five companies produced 5,400 cubic metres (7,000 cu yd) of materiel for construction purposes from ten quarries" seems out of place. I assume this is gravel?
- "RMA area"→"RMA"
- "taffic congestion"
- "opeate as units"
- suggest "cushions"
- suggest "In mid-September, 12"
- comma after "the main airport at Brussels"
- "
aAllied soldiers" - "indigenous resources" seems odd wording
That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.