Talk:Battle of France/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Where are we on this? The nominator hasn't really been on wiki for the past week and a half or so. I'm happy to let us take our time, but I'd rather not let it linger if we don't have the time to finish in a reasonable time. I still have the Fall Rot and Aftermath sections to read through, but I doubt I'll do those until I hear back from Kevin (or if Keith is available to handle the review). Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit bogged down so it might be better to offer a list of things to do before reviving the review.Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that Keith has said he's too busy to handle the review, and Kevin hasn't responded to comments here for some time, I'm going to fail the article for now. Good luck getting the article in shape for a future attempt. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Citations need to be standardized. Most citations use short footnotes, but others have the entire book. Pick a style and standardize them.
• Watch for WP:ENGVAR issues - article should use British spellings, but I spot a "defense" and several "armor"s - there are likely others.  Done (used my new EngvarB script)Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Numerous duplicate links need to be removed.  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do a thorough read-through later. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Will begin this shortly. KevinNinja (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Similarity to Schlieffen Plan The header doesn't reflect the content which is a description of the evolution of army thinking about an offensive in the west. I think the section is OK so would alter the header instead, to something like German plans. For Schlieffen I'd add a "see also" link under the header and leave it at that (bearing in mind the myths and legends about what the Schlieffen plan was and wasn't).Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• It seems a convention that German armies are numbered (1st Army) and Allied ones are named (First Army) and that only a person's surname is used after being introduced with name, rank and wikilink. I'm also inclined to put citations at the end of sentences, unless the matter is so controversial that clauses need one. I'd favour using sfn's but that's mainly because it's the only system I really know, perhaps interested parties could venture an opinion before anyone standardises them, as it will take a while? Other preferences are that I try to use the fewest words possible in headers and to avoid altering wikilink titles, especially piping them and blueing a lot of words. Last year I started linking military units and putting the CO in brackets, 1st Battalion (Lieutenant-Colonel J. Smith) rather than writing Smiths's 1st battalion as it gets the unit and commander listed and linked in one go; I'm also minded to avoid apostrophes. I take a dim view of promiscuous adjectives and adverbs too as they make prose look like journalism. Not that I'm bitter of course....Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Infobox: If the data in it corresponds with the Casualties section in the text, I'd remove the citations as superfluous. As per earlier discussions I think that decisive victory is a technical term (a victory with political consequences) not a synonym for big so I'd replace it with See Aftermath section.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Citations: some sections seem over-cited (three or four cites to the same source same page) in one paragraph so I'd consolidate them into one cite at the end of the passage or paragraph.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

• "The battle defeated primarily French forces..." - the battle didn't defeat anyone - the Germans defeated French forces  Done KevinNinja (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• "The German plan for the battle..." - suggest "The German plan for the invasion of France..."  Done
• "...with the goal of the new French government accepting..." - suggest "...with the goal of forcing the new French government to accept..." - goals require action, one does not passively hope for a goal  Done
• "...Italy would control a small Italian occupation zone..." - drop the "Italian" as redundant  Done KevinNinja (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• "...under Axis occupation until the occupation..." - "occupation" twice in the span of 4 words, one needs to be changed. Normally, the Allied invasion in 1944 is referred to as a liberation, not an occupation. Conquest? it's descriptive rather than explanatory.Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  Done

Prelude

• Britain and France did not simply offer military support, they signed defensive treaties - this should be made clearer.  Done
• "German-occupied Saar" - this makes it sound as though the Saarland was not part of Germany  Done
• "he may have made some type of peace offer..." - the next line goes on to refer to the peace offer as a definitive fact - which is it?
  • This needs to be researched a bit more thoroughly. KevinNinja (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Allied forces

• "The British contributed a total strength of 897,000 men in 1939, rising to 1,650,000 by June 1940. In May, it numbered only 500,000 men, including reserves." - this is unclear - I assume the "it" refers to the BEF
• "The British contributed 13 divisions of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), three of which were untrained and poorly-armed labour divisions and 22 Belgian, 10 Dutch, two Polish divisions were part of the Allied order of battle." - would recommend splitting the bit about Belgian, Dutch, and Polish divisions into their own sentence.
• "...about around 14,000 guns..." - something is missing here
  • • • Fixed DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Things like "580 13mm" should be fixed - two sets of numerals should not be placed next to each other, one figure should be written out. One option would be to restructure it as "The French Army had 580 and 1152 light anti-aircraft guns of 13mm, 25mm calibre, respectively, with a further two hundred 20mm guns in the process of delivery.
• Also, watch the precision of your conversions - in one sentence, 13mm is equated to 1", but 25mm is given as .98" - either round both or give precise conversions for both.

Fall Gelb

• "Germany initiated Fall Gelb on the evening prior to and the night of 10 May." - what, exactly, does this mean? Seems like an awfully convoluted way to say "On the night of 9 May..."  Done
• As far as I'm aware, Student commanded the 7th Flieger Division, not the 22nd Luftlande  Done
• I wonder why the line about the Dutch Air Force describes the number of sorties as a "mere 332", while the same line in the Belgian section plainly states that the Belgians flew 77 sorties.
• "...an operation organised separately by the Luftwaffe the Battle for The Hague failed" - something is missing here  Done
• Translate foreign terms like "Schwerpunkt" on first use - while these may be readily understood by those of us familiar with the topic, most readers will not be.  Done
• "rounds per "tube" (gun)" - while tube is a common word for the military and military historians, it seems redundant to use it once in the article and define it. Cleaner simply to call them guns.  Done KevinNinja (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• "Guderian ordered the 2nd Panzer Division to capture Boulogne, the 1st Panzer Division to take Calais and the 10th Panzer division to seize Dunkirk" - in the subsection immediately above on the Siege of Calais, it states that the 10th Division attacked Calais - which is it? Calais, the orders were changed  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Evacuation numbers do not add up or make any sense. First, 165k were evacuated by 31 May, with another 118k between 31 May and 4 June. This amounts to 283k, but the article states that 338k were evacuated. Where did those other 55k men come from? What exactly does the 139k British and 139k French figures represent? It seems like the article is trying to make sense of conflicting figures, but does not sufficiently explain what any of them are.
• 29 of 40 destroyers sunk or seriously damaged - I assume this is only RN ships (and more accurately, only Home Fleet ships, since the RN had well over 100 destroyers in service at the time)? And only during the evacuation? What about French losses? I know several destroyers were sunk in the area during the campaign, including Foudroyant and Bourrasque.

References

• Surely we do not need to cite the History Channel, do we?
• Citation format needs to be standardized - a handful are using the sfn template
• Same with the full refs - for instance, if multiple works by the same author are used, either repeat the name each time or don't (Citino is repeated for his four books, but Corum is not, for example).
• Ditto for linking authors - either link them all or don't link any. For instance, Pete Mansoor has an article
• What makes Douglas Jacobson reliable? As far as I can tell from his website, he's a hobbyist and the author of novels, not serious history.

Images

• Many images have their size forced - this should generally not be the case, as users can set their own preferences. Forced sizes should really only be used for very detailed images that need to be made larger. Done
• The lead montage needs to be updated to replace the photo of the Renaults, as that photo was deleted from Commons for lacking a source.
• File:Soldat Francès al Saar.jpg - improperly licensed
• File:German PLane Destroyed.jpg - improperly licensed and has no source  Done

• • • The French Army was by far the largest component of the Allied forces, yet (aside from the lead montage) there is exactly one photo of the French Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying to make some sense of this

From the article: French tactical deployment and the use of mobile units operationally was also inferior to that of the Germans. Tactically, armour was spread thinly along the French line; French infantry divisions were supported by tank battalions of about 100 tanks, which prevented them from being a strong, independent operational force. Making matters worse, only a handful of French tanks in each unit had radios installed, and the radios themselves were often unreliable, thus hampering communication. French tanks were also very slow in speed in comparison to the Panzers (except for the SOMUA S35), as they were designed as infantry support, enabling German tanks to offset their disadvantages by out-manoeuvering the French on the battlefield. In 1940, French military theoreticians still considered tanks as infantry support. As a consequence, at various points in the campaign, the French were not able to react as quickly as German armour.

I see a number of problems but perhaps I am just not reading well today.

• • "...armour was spread thinly along the French line; French infantry divisions were supported by tank battalions of about 100 tanks, which prevented them from being a strong, independent operational force."

US Infantry Divisions in 1943-45 almost always had a tank battalion attached also. This is usually seen as a strength, not a weakness. Postwar, one of the things the US Army did was make tanks permanent elements of Infantry Divisions. One could just as well write, "Many French Infantry Divisions had thier own 100-tank-strong tank battalions, making them potentially formidable combined-arms units." The deployment of so many French tanks to infantry support did not prevent the french from raising four large armored divisions and a number of other mechanized units. They had a lot of tanks.

• • "...French tanks were also very slow in speed in comparison to the Panzers (except for the SOMUA S35), as they were designed as infantry support, enabling German tanks to offset their disadvantages by out-manoeuvering the French on the battlefield. In 1940, French military theoreticians [theorists]] still considered tanks as infantry support. As a consequence, at various points in the campaign, the French were not able to react as quickly as German armour."

This is confusing two very different things. Yes, many French tanks had lower road speed. That is very rarely a huge tactical disadvantage. Most French tanks had far heavier armor than their German counterparts too. That contributed to their low speed.

But to go from tank road speed to the inability of the French to promptly react to German armor is quite a stretch. The Allies (not just the French) had a truly massive operational liability in their slow decision cycle compared to the Germans. German doctrine required flexibility above all, to enable rapid decisionmaking 'on the spot'. This is why they led from the front, and why they prioritized good radios in all their tanks (even though most of them were only receivers). French doctrine of methodical battle did not require these tools, because tactical units were expected to conform fairly tightly to plans, and higher HQs would make decisions at their own pace. None of this has anything to do with tank road speed.

I will work on an edit but this paragraph is deeply flawed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but the passage is cited; on paper most French tanks were better than their German counterparts but as you point out, the characteristics of the vehicles were less important than organisation, communication and tactics. French containment tactics weren't bad in themselves, after all the Germans used similar ones on the Eastern Front later in the war.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)