Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Normandy 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) 21:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
American logistics in the Normandy campaign[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
American logistics in the Normandy campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This is a companion to my article on British logistics in the Normandy campaign, which was written back in 2017. The US effort is far more controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Image review—pass
- File:Red Ball 1944 september 20-fr.svg needs sources for information presented (I am not sure about RS and the second link is dead).
- The image is part of a series created by Wikipedians. The source is Ruppenthal, Logistic Support of the Armies, Volume II, Map 5, p. 136 [1], along with the accompanying text, which notes the changes to the Red Ball route over time. I have added an archive link [2] to the other map (which comes from here). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- File:Red_Ball_Express_Regulating_Point.jpg Can you confirm that this is a US military image? Source link is bare image, so it doesn't say so.
- The image is from Ulysses Lee's seminal work, The Employment of Negro Troops, p. 632 [3], which is also part of the Green books series. The book notes that the image was taken from the US Army files. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Other images look OK to me in terms of copyright, relevance and other criteria. buidhe 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Other comments
Some of the sections are very long. It would be helpful for readability to break up or subdivide some of the longer ones, such as Bolero, Shipping, Mulberry harbor, Base organization, POL, Railways, Motor transport, Ports. These are all well over a page on my computer with small font and are likely to occupy several screens for readers who use larger text or smaller screens. buidhe 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying no, but am uncertain as to how this will improve readability. MOS:BODY says Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose but gives no guidance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"Very_long"_sections. buidhe 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Support by Nick-D[edit]
Great topic! I have the following comments:
- " This left the Third US Army with only 60 percent of its wheeled vehicles" - when was this as of?
- Can more be said about the supply of the two airborne divisions in the 'Assault' section? - this appears rather late in the article, and could be usefully moved forward.
- "Discharge at night under lights began on 12 June despite the obvious risk of German air attack. " - this might over-state the risk given Allied air superiority over Normandy: a key reason for the success of the Allied landings at Normandy is that the Germans could only occasionally harass their rear areas while the Allies greatly disrupted the German supply lines. The Australian night fighter squadron which operated over Normandy in June found few targets, for instance.
- Very true. Only one ship was lost to air attack (HMS Boadicea). Deleted "obvious". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- "only 25 days of good weather could be expected in June" - this seems pretty good actually.
- "as was interference by the Luftwaffe once it was beyond the range of fighter cover." - given that the Allies were always able to move fighter aircraft to cover the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards, and were able to maintain substantial air units in France from early in the Normandy campaign, this seems questionable.
Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Support: G'day, Hawkeye, nice work, as always. I had a look at this earlier in the year and believe it meets the A-class criteria. I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see some examples of British English (probably from templates -- metres for instance, but also "despatched", "minimise", "reconnaissance", )
- and by May 1944 fifteen US port battalions were working the UK ports --> missing full stop
- but it died hard in the UK -- this seems a bit like editorialising
- everyone from Eisenhower down felt short changed -- this seems a bit like editorialising
- I'm not sure how to express this differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, not a major concern. I'd suggest maybe: "and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, there was widespread disappointment". Would that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to express this differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- and a shortage of it proved impossible to reserve the routes: I wasn't really sure about the wording here
- with mines that the German had apparently --> "with mines that the Germans had apparently" or "with mines that the German troops had apparently"
- A great victory had been won...: I'd suggest attributing this contention in text
- rapidly changing operational situation. [175] --> remove space between citation and punctuation
- in the References: "Center Of Military History" --> "Center of Military History"?
- "Little, Brown and Cimoany" --> " Little, Brown and Company"?
- OCLCs for the Balmer, Blumenson, Crist, Mayo works?
- suggest adding an endash to the title of the source by C.J. Dick
- ISSN or similar for the Infantry Journal?
- Washington, D.C. v. Washington, DC (compare Hogan with Ruppenthal)
Settled on DC per MOS:POSTABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- "File:Omaha Mulberry Harbour.jpg": the image description page appears to be missing some information; also, the source link doesn't point to the image, suggest adjusting the link or provide a catalogue number to allow searching
- Corrected on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nice work. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Logistics2/maps/USA-E-Logistics2-5.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://web.archive.org/web/20151023235810/https://www.gmccckw.nl/images/Normandy4445/RedBallRoadMapLR.jpg){kind=link}
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
Another nice piece on WWII logistics, Hawkeye. Some comments from me:
- Lead
- link Communications Zone
- suggest "but the American Mulberry at Omaha"
- link mortar (weapon)
- probably no need for (BARs) in the lead as not used again in the lead, just use in the body?
- link Brittany
- Body
- comma after "General George C. Marshall"
- suggest "Harry L. Hopkins, the principal foreign policy advisor to the president"
- suggest "Major General John C. H. Lee, who had previously commanded the Pacific Ports of Embarkation in the US."
- Northern Island Base Section→Northern Ireland Base Section
- link measurement ton
- link Division (military)
- move NATOUSA in full from second to first mention
- Ma
rking three round-trip voyages - troop
sarrivals - in the first five months of 1944
- say that the Third Army was the US follow-up force
- say that 21st Army Group was the principal landing force for D-Day and that First United States Army Group was a deception formation
- introduce FUSAG when first mentioning First United States Army Group
- link Communications Zone
- Advance Section (ADSEC) is odd, normally we would link the term, not the acronym
- It's what the article is called. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- True, but the target article is completely uncited, as of course is the claim it is commonly referred to as ADSEC. The article title is deficient in a number of ways. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's what the article is called. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- link Brittany
- Base Section No. 2, under the command of
Brigadier General Leroy P.Collins, was activated
Down to Assault, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- for glider-borne link Military glider
- insert links into "quartermaster, ordnance, medical, military police, signals and chemical warfare"
- link James Edward Wharton
- 11th Port what? regiment? brigade?could you reword
- link Armored bulldozer and suggest bulldozer rather than colloquial "dozer"
- These are not the same thing. An armoured bulldozer is a bulldozer with armoured protection. A tank dozer is a tank with a bulldozer blade on the front.
| Armoured bulldozer | Tank dozer |
|---|---|
 |
|
- Yes, I am aware, but "dozer" is still colloquial, suggest "tank bulldozers" you could also link to M4 Sherman variants#US Special Attachment variants as these sixteen were Shermans in any case. They were joined later in the day by actual armoured bulldozers anyway. See [5] Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- could you reword "The demonstration of the Army's prodigality inculcated a culture of wastefulness that had undesirable longer term consequences."? Seems unnecessarily wordy.
- dropped "long term". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean "profligacy" rather than "prodigality"? the former being more severe and the latter being a rather obscure usage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Down to Build-up. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- pontons→ pontoons, this is an archaic spelling less recognisable than pontoon, there are more examples
- personally returned to the UK
- suggest being consistent with use of FUSA for First Army after it is introduced
- "On its first day of operation, a vehicle unloaded over the pier every 1.16 minutes." do you mean loaded?
- link blockship
- link Allied Expeditionary Air Force
- Some supplies and equipment such as 105 mm howitzers
- link field hospital
Ccross-Channel- eliminate
the man withmen carrying the Browning automatic rifle (BAR) - emergency action. the First Army
- when first mentioning the M1 mortar, say it was 81 mm, as you later refer to 81 mm ammunition
- link New York Port of Embarkation
- can you briefly explain what the Minor System pipeline was?
- link avgas
Down to Breakout and pursuit. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- explain that Operation Cobra was the breakout from Normandy when first introduced
- For some reason, Bradley fixated on Brest? Did he explain his decisions or thinking in A Soldier's Story?
- VIII Corps commander Lieutenant General Troy H. Middleton
- the commander
iof the 4th Major Port - Ten days later it was redesignated
thatas Cherbourg Command - Base Collins's Section No. 1→Collins' No. 2 Base Section
- move the link to Laval, Mayenne to first mention
- what were the implications of "although ADSEC had opened a MT80 supply point at Fontainebleau"?
- what is the import of (282,000 US gallons (1,070,000 l) on 24 August alone) when that is less than the First Army daily rate of 501,000 US gallons?
- were there any gauge issues with using the French railways?
- No, the French system was a standard-gauge railway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- link Pontaubault
- found using a series of secondary lines?
- 18:00 on 15 August and 20:00 and 19:00, per MOS:TIME
- was in Allied hands,
andreconstruction of that line was given a high priority, and it - link Dreux
Down to Motor transport. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- suggest "
The theaterETO was only partly responsible for this." - move Transportation Corps link to first mention
- suggest standardising with Chartres-Dreux or Dreux-Chartres
- or building new ones
- link Consolidated B-24 Liberator
- link Cherbourg Maritime station
- coal coasters?
- link line of communications
- link sluice gate
- Luftwaffe is now in Merriam-Webster, so needn't be italicised
That's me done, but I'm left wondering if there is a heavy reliance on older sources, esp Ruppenthal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ruppenthal is awesome! It's a shame that the corresponding volume on the Pacific theatre never got written. I have an extensive library of books on logistics here and I can tell you that it is not a popular subject. I'm still anxiously awaiting the release of the volume on logistics in the Vietnam series. The last book-length treatment of the US forces in Normandy was Waddell. That was 25 years ago but somehow the distance between 1995 and 2020 doesn't seem as great as that between 1945 and 1970. I was very impressed with Dick's chapter on logistics - enough to buy a copy of the book, but he gives an overview. I will have a look at some theses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt. Not an issue at ACR, but I think you'll need to be able to show that you've looked at a wider range of sources (and some more recent ones) at FAC. I still think ponton and prodigality are pretty obscure (and we should be writing in plain English for readers), but that is a minor matter. Support for this excellent effort. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Some of the recent works which have re-evaluated popular views of the US Army in World War II (like this one) might have useful material on this topic - there have been a few works in recent years arguing that the US Army was more effective than previously commonly believed due to its 'enablers' and good leadership. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt. Not an issue at ACR, but I think you'll need to be able to show that you've looked at a wider range of sources (and some more recent ones) at FAC. I still think ponton and prodigality are pretty obscure (and we should be writing in plain English for readers), but that is a minor matter. Support for this excellent effort. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Source review – pass[edit]
In progress... Harrias talk 08:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Formatting and consistency
- "Balmer, J. D.; Compton, L. J.; Daley, J. P.; Williams, U. P. (1945)" needs some publisher details.
- "Beck, Alfred M.; Bortz, Abe; Lynch, Charles W.; Mayo, Lida; Weld, Ralph F. (1985)" has a typo: "United States Amy"
- Same for the next, "Blumenson, Martin (1961)". Also, why does this list the publisher as "Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army", rather than "Center of Military History" like the previous instance? Looking at the sources themselves, they both use "Center of Military History"? Check this for all the "United States Army in World War II" sources.
- "Bykofsky, Joseph; Larson, Harold (1957)" doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
- "Hogan, David W., Jr. (2000)" similar question; lists "Center of Military History" in the source material? Am I missing something here?
- "Melia, Tamara Moser (1991)" needs an endash in the year range for the title.
- Could you note that the "Osmanski, F. A." sources are all PDFs.
- Generally, you use "City, State" for the location. I'm happy with Toronto and Boston being exceptions to this, but in "Rawson, Andrew (2012)", I would expect some more information for "Stroud".
- "Thomson, Harry C.; Mayo, Lida (1960)." doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
- Typo in the location for "Waddell, Steve R. (1994)": "Wesport, Connecticut".
Quality and coverage
- All sources appear to be high-quality reliable sources.
- As Peacemaker67 notes, looking towards a future FAC, it would be worth sampling some more modern sources; I don't know if this provides much?
Spot checking
- Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and in each instance the article accurately represented the source material. Harrias talk 08:50, 9 July 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.