Talk:British logistics in the Normandy campaign

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British logistics in the Normandy Campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this very interesting article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead would benefit from material noting how successful the logistical arrangements for the campaign were

  Struggling to find a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added to the Outcome section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Could the background section expanded to note the influence which campaigns up to that stage of the war had on the logistics planning? (eg, the experiences gained from the various amphibious operations and the campaigns in North Africa) - this would help the make the point that the British weren't starting from scratch, and some of the lessons learned about the logistical needs of forces engaged in this kind of campaign had been learned the hard way.

  Okay... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest translating the D+x format for numbering days the first time its used

  Y Switch to date format for most references; added explanation on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• The material on the preparations could note the measures taken to hide them from the Germans: the photo of the trucks appears to be an example of this given that they're parked under trees on a dirt road

  I'll see what I can find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Only routine camouflage was practiced. 21st Army Group didn't think that a camouflage deception would be worthwhile. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• The coverage of the capture of Cherbourg should probably note how badly damaged the port there was (which I imagine helps to explain why the capacity allocated to the British looks so modest)

  Three points here: (1) The port was never very big; (2) Most of the allocation went to the Americans; (3) The port was badly damaged. I'll find some info. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Y Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting the issues around the availability of replacements and manpower more generally in the discussion of casualties. While British casualties were lower than expected, they still absorbed all of the available replacements and led to a division being disbanded.

  Yes, the 59th Division. Will add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

  Y added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "! September" - typo: 1 September I presume ;)

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember reading something (in John Buckley's fine book on the 21st Army Group, I think) about the efforts made to recover and repair damaged tanks being sufficiently successful to offset much of the seemingly heavy losses - helped by the the British generally advancing and being able to recover their tanks while the retreating Germans didn't have this luxury. Do your sources discuss this? I can dig up the book if it would be helpful.

  Monty's men? I'll look it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  I couldn't actually find it when I looked for it. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion of air supply could note the use of gliders to land equipment and supplies for the 6th Parachute Division during the early day(s?) of the campaign.

  Will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• The section on the pursuit phase of the campaign should probably note that several divisions were also "grounded" to free up their transport.

  The 52nd Division? Will add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  This was for Market-Garden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Outcome section would be strengthened by a discussion of the success of the logistical efforts prior to the breakout as well. As I understand it, and the article appears to state, the 21st Army Group was very well supplied and this was a major factor in its success.

  Yes, that is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added a paragraph to this effect to the Outcome section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to note whether British logistical arrangements were more or less successful than those of the US Army? (or were they so intertwined for this to be meaningless?).

  Y Words to this effect in the outcome section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps note Operation Pluto somewhere, if only to help to dispel the myths around its influence on the campaign.

  I originally wrote a bit about PLUTO, but Bambi did not come into operation until 18 September, and Dumbo not until 1 November, so it was outside the scope of the Normandy campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to pass this nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pluto

Surely here must be a mention about Operation Pluto soon? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought about it, and wrote something at one point, but it didn't come into operation until September, so I deferred it to a successor article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you. ps. wonderful article btw. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

CE

Did a cheeky little ce, blammed a couple of typos, changed a few sentences for flow and rv a couple of dupe wikilinks. Checked for dupes, Auto Edded, revised Engvar B and left a couple of questions via < ! - - hidden in the text; pls revert as desired, all edits suggestive. I thought the article was a tour de force and well worth the time and effort of all concerned. Wiki at its best. Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've addressed the questions. Reverted to some technical terms. (One problem with English is that so many words have both technical meanings and colloquial ones. (Did you know what dollars and cents mean when we are talking about nuclear reactors?) Two minor corrections: the 21st Army Group did not entirely consist of men (mostly, but not entirely) and the damage to the railways was not entirely due to bombing (again, mostly but not entirely). Also, never ever change the EngVar on an article. (Especially not to EngVarB, which is just a placeholder.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury Seven/archive1 with a review, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was in Briteng? Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

on the multinational element

don't know if this counts as burying the lead but having name dropped that there were units other than Commonwealth in 21st Army Group, nothing more is made of whether this did or did not affect logistics. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it only British logistics?

Unless I'm reading the lead wrong, shouldn't this article be titled something like "Anglo-Canadian logistics in the Normandy campaign" to refer to the multinational 21st Army Group? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

From British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany: "Although it contained personnel from many nations, the logistical support was British... throughout the campaign in North-West Europe, there was virtually no separate Canadian supply organization other than what existed within First Canadian Army itself. The great majority of Canadian requirements, including ordnance stores, ammunition, petroleum products, most engineer, medical and dental stores, rations, office machinery and other supplies, were provided through British channels."

Added a summary of that to this article too. The other article is up for review at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with comments, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)