Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American transportation in the Siegfried Line 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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article takes up where American logistics in the Northern France campaign leaves off, covering the period from September 1944 to January 1945. The volume of material was considerable, so I split the article into two parts; one about transportation, and one about supply. In this phase, the American armies remained largely static through September and October for lack of supplies, particularly ammunition. Initially this was because the rapid advance across France and Belgium created lengthy supply lines; the rehabilitation of railways could not keep pace, and the use of motor transport was a stopgap that caused longer term problems. Then, as the weather deteriorated, the beaches became unusable, and the lack of port capacity became a problem because the ports in Brittany that had been intended to supply the American forces had not been captured. Shipping piled up offshore, unable to discharge, and the resulting shortage of ships threatened the entire Allied war effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Source review from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day, Hawkeye, this is just a quick run through at this stage -- I will try to take a better look sometime in the next few days. Here are a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "outmanoeuvered" --> "outmaneuvered"
  • "short term" --> "short-term"?
  • "An accumulations of idle shipping" --> "An accumulation of idle shipping"
  • "deep water berths" --> "deep-water berths"?
  • "cannibalising" --> "cannibalizing"
  • "formalised" --> "formalized"
  • "dischaged" --> "discharged"
  • "It rehabilitation was" --> "Its rehabilitation was"
  • "USAPRS Thomas F. Farrell Jr., a Baltic coaster converted to an engineer port repair ship" --> italics for the ship's name?
  • "Le Havre Harbor" --> "Le Havre harbor"?
  • line of communications is overlinked
  • "Channel, Army stevedores unload" --> "Channel, US Army stevedores unload"?
  • "Ardennes Offensive" --> lower case for consistency
  • "Cherbourg Harbor" v. "Cherbourg harbor" (consistency)
  • spot checked citations 56, 68 and 84 -- all support the text they are listed against (no action required)
  • references appear to be reliable based on authors or publishers (no action required)
  • all information appears referenced (no action required)

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]
  • Both Ruppenthal 1959 have a "extra text in |volume=" error.
    Wonder where that comes from? I'm not getting it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre. I'll just remove the extra text, then (turns out it was Ruppenthal 1953 and Ruppenthal 1959). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] the World War II campaign in northwest Europe that ran from the end of the pursuit of the German armies from Normandy in mid-September 1944 until December 1944, [...] This would be a good place to link the Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine
    checkY Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional port capacity was obtained through the development of the ports of Rouen and Le Havre, and in November, Antwerp was opened. Recommend rough dates for Rouen and Le Havre as with Antwerp; also recommend "and the opening of Antwerp in November".
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background & Shipping
Ports
Railways

Reading completed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • but before the war it had been a transit port, and it did not possess large amounts of covered storage space. These seem to be related but not outright said; that it didn't posses large covered storage space because it was a transit port, I would simply say but before the war it had been a transit port, and therefore did not possess large amounts of covered storage space. I think this is covered by sources, especially for it had been of p. 111, but I understand if you view this as straying too far from the sources.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
[edit]

(First three are stolen from my previous review.

Shipping
[edit]
  • The delay in capturing and opening Cherbourg meant that Cherbourg, the minor ports and the beaches would have to handle far more daily tonnage than originally planned. I think Cherbourg is accidentally used twice, so I've changed it to The delay in capturing and opening Cherbourg meant the minor ports and the beaches would have to handle far more daily tonnage than originally planned; please revert that if I'm misreading it.
    checkY Already corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Utah and Omaha beaches were closed for good on 13 and 19 November respectively. suggest changing for good to permanently
    checkY Prefer the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ports
[edit]
  • Granville had been subject to systematic demolition, with quays cratered, cranes tipped into the water, and the harbor blocked with sunken craft. should specify who did this if possible, I'm assuming not the Americans, probably the Germans? Perhaps Granville had been subject to systematic demolition by [German occupiers/retreating German forces], with quays cratered, cranes tipped into the water, and the harbor blocked with sunken craft.
  • workers elsewhere demanded the same the hallmark of any true MilHist article (no suggestion).
  • @Hawkeye7: That is all my suggestions, apologies for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Great to see all these loggie articles coming through, Hawkeye. A few comments from me:

Lead
Background
Shipping

Down to Ports. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ports

Down to Rouen. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this up over the weekend, bit pressed for time today and tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Hawkeye! Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
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_transportation_in_the_Siegfried_Line_campaign&oldid=1057872365"