Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Title

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) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Title

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation Title/archive1

Operation Title was a valiant but failed Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during October 1942. The attack plan was like something out of a thriller, with a Norwegian trawler smuggling two British manned torpedoes through heavily defended waters. While the manned torpedo crews were superbly trained and likely to have crippled Tirpitz, the operation failed at the last moment when shoddy workmanship caused both of the craft to be lost when they separated from the bottom of the trawler during a storm. The Allied personnel attempted to escape overland to Sweden, with one of the British seamen being captured and murdered by the Germans and the others making it across the border.

This is my first ACR in quite a while, and a return to the topic of attacks against Tirpitz I've been working on over quite a few years. I created the article in March and it was assessed as a GA in April. It has since been expanded considerably, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

Nice to see you back around. ACR is pretty slow right now; if you're able to help out with reviews on other nominations, that would be greatly appreciated!

Move the wikilink to aircraft carrier to the first mention (the Ark Royal) rather than where it currently is (the Victorious).
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..but did not specify what they would be involved to preserve secrecy." This doesn't quite make sense. Either remove "they", or add "in" (personally, I favour remove "they").
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..to the west of Trondheimsfjorden (English: Trondheim Fjord)." Move the English translation to the first mention in the body, which is the 4th paragraph of the Background section.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..with the attack being scheduled for the 31st of the month." Consider removing "being", I don't think it is necessary.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love the map showing the key locations, but can you move the Hestvik tag above the dot to make it more visible?
- Yep - done Nick-D (talk)
"..with the crew throwing.." Consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..but the British were believed they would be treated as prisoners of war.." Too many words, remove "were"?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink C. E. T. Warren and space the initials per that article and our MOS. (Applies both in the prose and the reference section).
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switching back to the lead: "The attack was cancelled following.." I think "cancelled" gives the wrong impression here; I'd favour "abandoned", mirroring the language in the third paragraph.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This boat suffered mechanical problems during the voyage to Norway and while it was operating in Norwegian waters which caused delays." For clarity, consider adding "both" before "during the voyage".
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this was a really interesting and well-written article that was a pleasure to review, nice work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks a lot for these comments. I think that I might have now actioned them. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very happy to support this, a great article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

Link Tautra.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Tatra" be "Tautra"? (x2)
- Yes - fixed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

File:Tirpitz-2.jpg: US Navy image - PS - okay
File:Chariot Craft and men. 3 March 1944, Rothesay.jpg - 1944 image - copyright expired - okay
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J19316, Norwegen, Schlachtschiff, Zerstörer.jpg - German copyright restored - CC-by-SA 3.0 - okay
File:Lunna House - Fra vest.jpg, File:Tautra as seen from Frosta.jpg - CC-by-SA 3.0 - UK image so FoP - okay
File:Gerhard Flesch (6983604862).jpg - Norweigian copyright - expired - okay?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The final image was uploaded by the Norwegian National Archives as being PD ([1]) so should be fine to use. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

References are of good quality and neatly formatted
- HMSO vs Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  - Both are correct - the name seems to have changed from Her Majesty's Stationery Office to HMSO at some point: I've used what the books use. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Does HMSO need to be linked? None of the other references are
  - No: de-linked Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks: 45, 46, 47, 74 - all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Welcome back Nick. Some comments:

Lead

explain in the lead that the team had to scuttle the mothership in the Trondheimsfjord due to mechanical failure. It currently sort of begs the question why they didn't just leave.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

is it possible to explain why the bomber raids were unsuccessful?
- I've added some material on this Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the British know that a nearby aircraft carrier would avoid an attack by Tirpitz on a convoy? Via Ultra perhaps?
- Not sure, and that's probably outside the scope of the article. They needed to assign capital ships to each convoy, and I've added text on this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

for "a number two" link second in command
- I think it's a different concept. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link mothership
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link Neutral powers during World War II
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Admiral~~ Pound
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

~~Lieutenant Colonel~~ Wilson
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Admiral~~ Horton
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how were the 1,600 kg subs lifted and swung overboard to be attached to the hull?
- A derrick was fitted to the boat - added. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the original intent to attach the Chariots with steel hawsers to the eyebolts that Larsen had installed? Why were they attached using ropes attached to cleats on the deck?
- The ropes and cleats were used to hold the craft horizontal - added Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "turned themselves in toat a police station"
- Much better: done Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link internment
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
was Larsen the effective commander of the mission?
- It seems so, but no source explicitly says this. I suspect that the arrangement was that he was in command until the Chariots started their operation. Everyone seems to have deferred to him throughout the operation. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

do we know what Evans told the German Navy if anything?
- No source discusses this. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keitel personally authorised Evan's execution? Given the Commando Order, couldn't the German commander in Norway have authorised it? Seems overkill (so to speak).
- Multiple sources state that Keitel was the decision maker for this murder. Even if this could be approved locally, I suspect that commanding officers were kicking this matter upstairs to try to reduce their culpability, especially as this wasn't long after this criminal order had been issued. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you could drop the comma from "Both were found guilty of war crimes, and executed"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has the poor serviceability of the boat engine been identified by historians as a lesson learnt? The two breakdowns and half-speed sailing seem to have had a significant impact on the failure given the delay they caused and the fact that an earlier attack would have avoided the poor weather.
- Yes, this is noted in the assessments section. Perhaps oddly, no historian is critical of the use of the particular boat here - it does seem odd to have trusted an intricately prepared mission to a clapped out boat. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find. Nice work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Many thanks for this careful review. I think that I may have now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.