Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Allied logistics in the Southern 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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Many years ago I gathered a mass of material in both English and French on the World War II campaign in southern France, but never got to work on it owing to my loss of admin status. However, I have used it here to create another article in a series on Allied logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe during World War II. The campaign in southern France has not attracted as much attention as those in the north, and its volume in the Green Books series was not published until 1993, over twenty years after than the last of those about the campaigns in northern France (by a historian who had already completed a volume in the Vietnam series). The article was fairly well received when it appeared on the front page at DYK back in March, and has since passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of sections are very long, such as "Planning", "Assault" and "Marseille". It would be quite difficult to read this article on mobile. The article is also longer than optimal for readability. (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Support by Nick-D[edit]
As always, it's good to see this type of topic at ACR. Out of interest, do you know why it took until 1993 for the US Army official history of this campaign to be completed? I have the following comments:
- "The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to take the assault shipping required for Anvil from the Pacific theater." - just to check, was this the US-led Pacific Theater, or the British-led Southeast Asian Theatre? (which had most of its LSTs sent back to the Med in 1943 or early 1944, thus crippling the planned amphibious landings in Burma and/or Sumatra)
- The American-led Pacific Theatre. Emphasised this. The LSTs and LSIs returned in late 1943 and early 1944 were for Shingle, the attack on Anzio. In September 1944 landing ships earmarked for Dracula were retained in north west Europe for the Scheldt operation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- " so the British Chiefs of Staff turned the offer down" - it's not clear what offer is being referred to here?
- "Some 136,000 bombs, 3.5 million rounds of ammunition and 2,500 drop tanks were present on the island" - when?
- " Italian prisoners of war (POWs) were organized into service units" - were these still POWs, or part of the Allied-aligned Italian government in the south of the country?
- They were still POWs. Nearly two-thirds ultimately signed "co-belligency" agreements that allowed them to be used beyond the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. Some other units were formed by the Allied-aligned Italian government, but there was trouble when the two types were deployed together, as the non-POWs had better pay and conditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- " All American service units were inspected by Coastal Base Section by 6 September, and their standard of equipment and training was such that none needed to be relieved from their assignment to Dragoon" - I suspect that this could be simplified, to note that the service units all met the grade
- I'm not sure what "outloading" means
- Can anything be said in the 'Assault' section about the logistics for the Allied parachute force that took part in the operation? It was an under-strength division, though was rapidly relieved by the troops that had landed from the sea.
- "By the end of the year the Seventh Army reported that it was short ... This exceeded Seventh Army's ability to provide replacements" - this is a bit repetitive and confusing
- Why did the Seventh Army run short on key types of weapons? (something which doesn't seem to have been a problem for the forces in Northern France)
- That's not what my article on Northern France says. But the problem was replacement factors laid down by the War Department, which were educated guesses. When a campaign unfolded different to expectations, shortages developed. The War Deportment then had to decide whether that campaign was an exception or the rule. The high losses of trucks, for example, was caused by running them over long supply routes, for which they were unsuited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]
Support: Another fascinating article, Hawkeye. I have a few very minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- "20 August 1944. Matted ramp in foreground is for DUKW" --> "20 August 1944. The matted ramp in foreground is for DUKW"?
- suggest condensing the lead down to four paragraphs
- Toulon is overlinked
- OCLC for the Dunham source?
- "All had been replaced except the .30-caliber machine guns" --> Perhaps state by when they had been replaced, i.e. "by the end of the campaign all had been..."
- "Meanwhile 344th Engineer General Service Regiment" --> "Meanwhile, the 344th Engineer General Service Regiment"?
- "Around this time, Neuropsychiatric (combat fatigue) cases" --> lower case neuropsychiatric?
- "With 24 hours of opening it had" --> "Within 24 hours of opening it had"
- I wonder if there is anything that could be added about medical supplies, particularly blood products. This is something that continues to vex us even now, so reading about how the problem was solved back then would be interesting (to me at least)
- "declined to 3.8 days' supply by 27 November[120]" --> missing full stop
- "twenty-five M8 armored cars, fifteen M10 tank destroyers, three M36 tank destroyers, 53 M4 Sherman tanks" --> probably should be consistent with numeral presentation here
- "2nd battalion, 36th Engineer Combat Regiment" --> "2nd Battalion, 36th Engineer Combat Regiment"?
- "the Samsteel was able to" --> drop "the"?
- "the seabees managed" --> "the Seabees managed"?
- "litres" --> liters
- "despatched" --> "dispatched" (US English?)
- "and about a thirds of" --> "and about a third of"
- "woollen" --> "woolen" (US English?)
- this appears to be unreferenced: "(A large German dump containing 183,000 US gallons (690,000 l) of high-octane gasoline and 36,500 US gallons (138,000 l) of diesel fuel at Besançon was later captured on 9 September.)"
Don't know how that happened. Added reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added my support above; fine work. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]
- moved from the United States to the United Kingdom than from North Africa to the United Kingdom Unlink both the US and UK. Too common to link them.
- To give Wilson the forces he needed to capture Rome Same as above with Rome.
- chiefs agreed to retain troops in Italy and to postpone Anvil to 10 July What's Anvil?
- When the Combined Chiefs of Staff met in London in mid-June Same as above with London.
- However, Wilson recommended an invasion of Istria instead --> "However, Wilson recommended an invasion of the peninsula of Istria instead" isn't that well known to drop the word.
- Most of the Force 163 planners travelled on Hewitt's flagship British "travelled" here.
- under the command of Colonel John P. Ratay in Corsica on 1 January 1944 Isn't it "on Corsica"?
- Google ngrams tells me that "in Corsica" is the most common form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- When Général d'Armée Henri Giraud met with Wilson and Devers --> A language template for "Général d'Armée" is needed. Same for Général de brigade. And shouldn't it be also italicised as MOS:FOREIGNITALIC tell us?
- and were regrouping in Corsica, southern Italy Not "on Corsica"?
I'll do the rest tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- FHQ informed Général d'armée Alphonse Juin that no Italicise maybe as above?
- I see a lot of long tons may be abbreviated the ones after the first one? This also applies to short tons.
- The US official abbreviation for short tons is tn, but there's no official abbreviation for the long ton. We use ST and LT, but that's just Wikipedia. A proposal to allow them to just be abbreviated to just "tons" was defeated. I think its better to just leave them in full. In the World War II period, the main tons used were the long tons and the measurement tons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- supplies and 325,730 US barrels (38,840,000 l) of fuel had been landed If there's a difference between the American barrel and the international one then I'd think linking is a good idea?
- Yes, there is a difference: an imperial barrel was 36 imperial gallons, about 164 l. Don't see a lot of value in linking it (the linked article covers both barrels), but sure.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another question here; don't we have to add imperial barels in the article as well? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- The olde measurements were context sensitive. Different units were used for different applications. While Americans used barrels for petroleum products, the imperial barrel was used for beer and ale. See English brewery cask units. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another question here; don't we have to add imperial barels in the article as well? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- with part under Général de brigade Georges-Vincent-André Italicise maybe as above?
- Sea mines weighing 1 long ton (1.0 t) were found Remove the extra nought.
- I can see 7 howevers maybe remove a couple of them?
- It removed over 61,500 pounds (27,900 kg) of explosives Why not tons here?
That's anything for today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- See a lot of miles here per MOS:UNITNAMES short units should only be written fully a few times.
- MOS:UNITNAMES says that
In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use
. Big difference. It also saysUnit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources
, but "miles" is never abbreviated in the sources. It appears only ten times in the article, has an abbreviation that is not commonly used (can't recall ever seeing it on a US road sign). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:UNITNAMES says that
- The FFI secured the oil refineries, which were only lightly damaged What is an FFI?
- Defined up in the Seaborne section above:
Local civilian labor proved difficult to find, as most able-bodied men had been deported for forced labor, joined the French Forces of the Interior (FFI) or fled to North Africa to join the Free French forces.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Defined up in the Seaborne section above:
- general cargo and 38,558 long tons (39,177 t) (331,600 US barrels (39,540,000 l)) of POL at Port-de-Bouc.[74][75][84][85][83] Ehm what? There are two units in between parentheses next to each other? Also per WP:CITEBUNDLE we shouldn't use more than 3 citations at the end of a sentence/paragraph.
- WP:CITEBUNDLE doesn't say that. However, on checking I found that two of the sources were not required, so reduced to three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- between Frejus and Sainte-Maxime commenced operations on the night of 23–24 August --> "between Frejus and Sainte-Maxime commenced operations on the night of 23/24 August"?
- MOS:DATERANGE says either form is acceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- ammunition officer, prevented the fire from reaching a nearby area where 105 mm ammunition was loaded No convert needed here?
- high capacity dual-track railway up the Rhône valley to Lyon.[93][92] Re-order the refs here.
- Vesoul at the rate of 275,000 ton-miles (401,000 tkm) per day Typos here?
- many of which were limited to loads of 5 tonnes (4.9 long tons) or less British tonne.
- from the coast to the Haute-Saône department No upper case for "department"?
- Italian and North African ports had to be suspended for a time.[105][91] Re-order the refs here?
- and on 1 September 14 LCMs from the attack cargo ship Looks odd can you replace figure 14 with a written one?
- commenced operation from Dijon airport on 9 October Not a proper noun?
- for personnel and air cargo were available to London, Paris, Edinburgh, Lyon Unlink the popular city here.
- I see a lot of U.S. gallons. Shouldn't we add imperial as well?
- Imperial liquid measurements are no longer used anywhere for fuels; in the UK they are only used (and hence the double conversion is only used) for beverages. (MOS:CONVERSIONS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- when a tanker with 6 million U.S. gallons (23 million liters) Abbreviate litres here.
- where it refilled up to 7,000 42-US-gallon (160 l) barrels Per MOS:NUMNOTES try to avoid awkward juxtapositions here.
- A parallel 4-inch (10 cm) pipeline for avgas was also run from Port-de-Bouc Remove the conversion here. Is already mentioned a couple of sentences before.
- to La Mède, where a 1,000 US barrels (120,000 l) storage tank Compound adjective here.
- running parallel to the 4-inch (10 cm) pipeline Another one.
- and 532 miles (856 km) of 6-inch (15 cm) pipe was in use Second "6-inch" here.
- the Seventh Army released 100,000 tins of condensed milk Typo here?
- The "Ammunition" section includes some metric units but without US/imperial conversions. The "Ordnance" section has also this problem.
- rounds per weapon per day, 105mm howitzer ammunition Space is here needed in the unit.
- Weapons lost included 327 .30-caliber machine guns, 278 .50-caliber machine guns, 1,824 .45-caliber submachineguns, 2,684 .45-caliber pistols Per MOS:NUMNOTES try to avoid awkward juxtapositions here.
- Three 400-bed evacuation hospitals, the 11th , 93rd and 95th Evacuation Hospitals, Typo here.
That's everything from me. Nice job; you really took some time with this long but interesting one. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Source review - pass[edit]
Will conduct one. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just checking to make sure Young is the Charles H. Young who was an officer in the 439th Troop Carrier Group. If so, the source ought to be fine, but the publisher doesn't appear to be one with a strong established reputation for what I can find (I'm finding a mail printing company in the USA from searching for it)
- Formatting is fine
- Spot checks I conducted were fine.
Looking very good here on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's him: Colonel Charles H. Young. He commanded the 439th Troop Carrier Group from January 1944 until October 1945. After the war he worked for American Airlines for 35 years, eventually becoming a Boeing 747 pilot. Worked on the Space Shuttle. In retirement he wrote books about aviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 10 September 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.