Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Siegfried Line 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 Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Although A-Class is completely constipated at the moment, and I already have three articles up for review, I am adding a fourth article. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports, the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks good
- The length of 12418 words would benefit from some splits or other length reduction.
- Some sections such as "Organisation", "Antwerp", "Roads", and "Supplies" are extremely long, harming readability. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
HF[edit]
I hope to get to this over the next week. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I understand why this has to be split off from the other portions of the drive through Europe due to length reasons, but I'm struggling to figure out the exact boundaries of how this campaign is being defined. It looks like the end of the campaign is being defined as when they started preparing for Operation Veritable, but where it begins is not clear
- I also find it a little odd that this is named for the Siegfried Line campaign when the Siegfried line is only mentioned once in the body, and in passing. It's just not always clear how the scope of the article is defined
- As I explained above, the campaign is what the American historians decided to call it. MacDonald's The Siegfried Line Campaign volume of the US Army official history covers Market Garden and the Scheldt, as well as Aachen and the Roer. I named the article after our infobox, which was created in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The two American divisions had seaborne tail" - I like to think that I'm reasonably informed about military terms, but I have no idea what "seaborne tail" means here. Is there a way to rephrase/gloss?
- Move the link for LST two lines up from the second mention to the first
- "two large cargo ships and 58 smaller vessels were sunk" - is through the end of the year or just in the 24 December attack mentioned in the previous sentence?
- "The price of a ton of coal at the pithead was 350 Belgian francs (equivalent to US$100 in 2020), but on the black market in Brussels it could fetch 5,000 francs (equivalent to US$1,700 in 2020)" - not sure about the rounding here - the former is a conversion rate of 3.5 francs/dollar, while the latter is roughly 2.9 francs/dollar. Shouldn't these conversions be closer to each other even with rounding?
By turning off the rounding on the first figure it becomes $118, which gives us a more comparable ratio. I was a bit iffy about this because in wartime there was no trade, so exchange rates were fixed under the Bretton Woods system How realistic that was for Belgium I don't know; Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- "No sooner was this resolved than the German Ardennes offensive interrupted the supply" - this is the Battle of the Bulge, right? If so, maybe a piped link?
- "The War Office was therefore obliged to impose quotas on the armies in the field." - why didn't they just restore the prior levels of ammunition production? It seems like artillery ammunition would be a priority
- "and the surplus Sherman Fireflies were issued to other units, further reducing the unit establishment of Shermans armed with the 75 mm gun" - this may just be a comprehension error, but how did sending the Fireflies elsewhere reduce the unit's establishment of 75 mm gun Shermans, because the Firefly wasn't armed with the 75mm gun
- Correct. The 29th Armoured Brigade was re-equipped with the new Comet tank. The Fireflies turned in were given to other units, where they replaced 75 mm Shermans. So British armoured units equipped with Shermans then had more Fireflies and fewer 75 mm Shermans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- "By the end of November, the stocks at the RMA were reduced to 176,000 long tons (179,000 t). This included 45,000 long tons (46,000 t) of ammunition, 6,000 long tons (6,100 t) of supplies, 65,000 long tons (66,000 t) of ordnance stores and 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) of engineering stores" - I would have assumed that this was the same thing as the table, but the numbers don't match. And some are higher but the supplies seems to be lower, so it's not just one being a component of the other?
- Sources look reliable for what they are citing
- It's a longer article, but I think the length is appropriate here.
Sorry this took so long to get to; was busier with work than expected. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]
Support: G'day, I took a look at this article and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk)
- can the lead be condensed to four paragraphs maybe?
- in the lead, RMA isn't defined
- "four platoons carrying POL": has this abbreviation been introduced yet?
- Yes, in the previous paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, sorry, not sure what I was thinking there. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, in the previous paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- the name Siegfried line only seems to appear in the lead and infobox; can it be mentioned in the body?
- "launched on 25 July" --> suggest adding the year here
- "restricted the times when DUKWs": link DUKW here and delete the later link
- "15 September-15 December": endash rather than a hyphen
- "torpedoes from E-Boats sank" --> "E-boats"
- "which had previous been engaged in dredging the Scheldt" --> "which had previously been engaged in dredging the Scheldt"
- "but an RE port construction": link and clarify abbrev
- "Each corps had a two corps troops composite companies" --> "Each corps had two corps troops composite companies"?
- "easier to supplies lorries for use" --> "easier to supply lorries for use"
- "railway system operation again" --> "railway system operating again" or "railway system in operation again"
- "Nineteen bridges, of which six that were double-track, were opened" --> "Nineteen bridges, of which six were double-track, were opened"
- "The exigencies of the campaign the took their toll on vehicles in wear and tear" --> "The exigencies of the campaign
thetook their toll on vehicles in wear and tear" - " The re-equipment process was carried out in January" --> " The re-equipment process was carried out in January 1945"?
- "was needed for other purposes.} Camps were": typo
- "low, with just twelve case in November" --> " low, with just twelve cases in November"
- "experience of the Great war had" --> "experience of the Great War had"
- "German Ardennes Offensive": decaps for consistency
- Added my support now above. Nice work as always, Hawkeye. Thank you for continuing to produce articles that demonstrate the importance of logistics to successful combat operations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Vami[edit]
[...] there were no intact ones upstream as far as Paris partly in due to Royal Air Force (RAF) attacks.
"in due to" sounds awkward; is this a British English thing?- Unsure, but the article on American and British English spelling differences uses the phrase a lot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
whereas under the American logistics was the responsibility of Lieutenant General John C. H. Lee's Communications Zone,
Awkward. Recommend nixing "under".but moved to Roubaixon the French-Belgian border,
on the French-Belgian (Franco-Belgian?).There is a lot of "advance base" and "advanced base". Are they the same thing?Headquarters Second Army Troops [...] HQ Second Army Troops
And what's the difference between HQ Second Army and HQ Second Army Troops? Are they the troops of HQ Second Army? A different body for the Second Army's troops?[...] but after operations commenced it was found that the enormous number of army troops units kept this HQ was fully occupied in their administration, and it did have the resources to control an army roadhead as well.
The second clause (first highlighted) of this sentence is confusing, and I think the third is missing a "not".
Market Garden awaits. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Market Garden to Ghent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
162 FMC [...] No. 162 FMC [...] 161 FMC [...] No. 161 FMC
Another "advance/advanced base" thing happening here.- The last paragraph of #Market Garden has two citations to Carter & Kann 1961, but to no other source. Can you combine them?
[...] SHAEF initially allocated SHAEF to US control [...] requested permission to railway terminal [...] so badly damaged that repair work initially confined to the construction of the railway terminal [...]
Huh?Landing Ship, Tank (LST) [...] three LSIs,
Should be consistent.During the Market Garden operation [...]
Should be "Operation Market Garden" here for consistency.During Operation Infatuate [...]
Can you provide the purpose of this operation, as with previous examples?An attempt had already been commence minesweeping [...]
Huh?Minesweeping operations commenced on 4 November [...]
Re-commenced, or commenced at Breskens?Some 1,031,000 cubic yards (788,000 m3) was dredged between 2 November 1944 and 31 January 1945.
Of river silt? Do your sources say what was done with the dredged material?A target was set of 40,000 long tons (41,000 t) per day [...]
This reads kind of awkwardly at the start. Why not move "was set" to the end of the highlighted text, or "a target for"?[...] caused the opening to be delayed until 28 December,
There's a redundancy here. Why not "delayed the opening until 28 December"?Temporary lighting was supplied to the Antwerp quays in December to allow the port to be worked around the clock, and at the dumps.
Were the dumps worked 24/7 as well?Another cause of difficulties at Antwerp was enemy action. The Germans began attacking Antwerp with V-weapons on 1 October.
Could these sentences be combined so as to eliminate the word "enemy" here? The issue I have with its use here is that the sentence is supposedly in neutral tone; while it is accurate that the Wehrmacht and by extension the Nazis are among the many enemies of humanity, the sentence could be more encyclopedic: "Another cause of difficulty were German V-weapon attacks that began on 1 October."Nonetheless, the number of civilians employed at the port rose from 7,652 in early December to over 14,000 in January. [...] Two large cargo ships and 58 smaller vessels were sunk between September 1944 and March 1945, [...]
Should be consistent.
Source review - pass[edit]
- All sources are reliable, and cover the literature on this campaign well
- Spot checks on how the primary sources (the 21st Army Group post-war reports) have been used in the article show that this usage is OK as it is limited to stating facts.
- Spot checks of citations selected at random:
- Ref 1 (Buckley 2013, p. 47): Checks out. This sentence is a bit over-complex though.
- Ref 38 (Stacey 1960, p. 329): Checks out, but the text here could be broadened given that it states that Montgomery believed that these ports would allow his forces to "go to Berlin".
- Ref 78a (Donnison 1961, p. 121): Checks out
- Ref 80 (Ellis & Warhurst 1968, p. 235): Checks out, but the damage to railways and roads could also be noted, as well as the observation that the attacks didn't have "any major interference in the overall working of the port"
- Ref 107 (Ellis & Warhurst 1968, pp. 60–63): Generally checks out, but it looks like '22 October' should be '12 October'
- Ref 118 (Donnison 1961, p. 401): Checks out, and I've added a sentence to connect better with the next sentence.
- No issues with close paraphrasing with these spot checks. The text supported by ref 118 is similar to the book's text, but it would be tricky to use other phrasing given that this is a technical sentence.
- Unlink the second link to L.F. Ellis in the references section
- As a random and unrelated comment, the UK Government, IWM or someone else really needs to digitalise all of the British official history series. The UK seems to now be the only major western ally to not have its Second World War official history online, which is a shame as the quality of it is generally very good and ahead of most of those in the other countries. The breadth of topics covered is particularly valuable.
Overall, pass. Well done consulting such a large range of at times obscure or hard to access sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment by CPA[edit]
- There's a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the background section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support, although I note that there is no alt text for any image its not a dealbreaker for me. Well written article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 20 October 2021 (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.