Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Normandy campaign

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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[reply]

American logistics in the Normandy campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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)[reply]

Image review—pass
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"Very_long"_sections. buidhe 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    By the end of June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    Moved forward to the buildup section, and added a bit more about the resupply of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "only 25 days of good weather could be expected in June" - this seems pretty good actually.
    Good point. Deleted "only". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    The the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards was predicated on the availability of air cover. There was no attempt to operate beyond it. But here, we are talking about deliberately doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Another nice piece on WWII logistics, Hawkeye. Some comments from me:

Lead
Body

Down to Assault, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • for glider-borne link Military glider
Armoured bulldozer Tank dozer

Down to Build-up. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Breakout and pursuit. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Motor transport. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

In progress... Harrias talk 08:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and consistency

Quality and coverage

Spot checking

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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/American_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign&oldid=966897221"