Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Matterhorn logistics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Matterhorn logistics

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Matterhorn logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics (my primary interest in it actually) off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, adding my support. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
  • Run the Internet Archive Bot on the page once?
    There are no dead references in the article, but ran the IABot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • Do any non-government, academic sources have any material we could add to the article? As of now we only have 5 of these. Have OUP, CUP, other university presses not published much on this topic? I don't mind it much, but this issue popped up at the Battle of Saipan FAC recently.
    I had no such problem with the Battle of Tinian. There is nothing on Matterhorn logistics specifically, but there are some books and articles about the B-29s in general, so I have added three additional sources.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, excuse the double tagging. Anything in the following sources which may be useful? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Matarisvan (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks. Refs #3, #7, #13, #14, #20, #23, #30, #31: all ok. The source review is a pass, though you could consider including material from the 5 sources listed above and others like these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Hawkeye; I'm not seeing this listed at WP:MILHIST/ACR. I'll try to post a review by the end of the week. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

Excellent work with this. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest noting the base in Ceylon in the lead
    It already says: "The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance was a logistical undertaking of enormous magnitude and difficulty." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest briefly noting the debate over whether the B-29s should have been sent to India or Australia in the background section, especially as some work was done to upgrade bases at Darwin to accommodate them.
    Briefly mentioned this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section could also note that Operation Matterhorn was seen as a gap filler until more efficient B-29 bases could be captured and brought into service in the Pacific; this helps to explain why such a logistically wasteful project was undertaken.
    That's what did happen; it is not what was intended at all. Added some details about why the operation was carried out.
  • "Engineer-in-chief" - should the 'chief' be capitalised or 'engineer' decapitalised here?
    Decapitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the Airbases section about how the Indian workers were recruited and what their experiences were? This section is currently heavily focused on the experiences of the Americans.
    I haven't got much, but I will add a little bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the base in Ceylon should note it was abandoned after a single raid (Operation Boomerang). The USAAF official history has a good quote on how wasteful this was that I used in that article.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery." - it's not clear what this is in relation to?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Japanese detect or attempt to disrupt the construction of airfields in India or China?
  • I suspect that "cfowl" is a typo for cowl
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding assessments by historians would strengthen the 'End of Matterhorn' section. Chennault was right, but he was also self-serving and at times flaky so is a bit of an unreliable witness here. I imagine that historians have noted that while Operation Matterhorn was a colossal waste of resources it didn't really matter given the vast resources the US could call on. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Matterhorn_logistics&oldid=1249978324"