Talk:British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

B class review

Please look into this. Djmaschek (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Operation Veritable, paragraph 6, last sentence: "for between 30,000 and 400,000 troops." (I suspect you mean 300,000, but I can't be sure.)

  Y Should be 300,000. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review this. Djmaschek (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Operation Plunder, paragraph 1: "On the other hand, sufficient stocks of POL to accede to a request from Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) to allocate 73,000 long tons (74,000 t) of petrol for US use." (confusing sentence).

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

More. Djmaschek (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Operation Plunder, paragraph 10: ""Sussex", took field field companies". (I'm guessing this should read: five field companies, but cannot be sure.)

  Y Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I confirm the B class assessment. But please look at the paragraph 1 and 10 issues. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that British logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany involved dumping ammunition that if stacked side by side and five feet (1.5 m) high, would have extended for 30 miles (48 km)? Source: Stacey, p. 458 [1]
  • ALT1: ... that British logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany involved buffaloes, ducks and weasels?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Questioning Collapse

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC).

• Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Checking quotes is complicated by the use of quotation marks to indicate colloquialism or codewords, e.g. "pepperpot tactics". I didn't find any real quotations.
• Neutral: - The title and framing of the article as "British" is an issue when the forces were "Anglo-Canadian" and the Canadians were explicitly organised as a separate national force. One might say that it was the British Empire but the word Commonwealth is often used for the Dominions in this context. It's not clear to me what the actual scope is supposed to be. Just 21st Army Group?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The fact seems to relate just to Operation Veritable. But our article about the Western Allied invasion of Germany says "In preparation for the Allied invasion of Germany east of the Rhine, a series of offensive operations were designed to seize and capture the east and west bank of the Rhine: Operation Veritable and Operation Grenade in February 1945, and Operation Lumberjack and Operation Undertone in March 1945, these are considered separate from the main invasion operation." So, there's a scope issue. Also the word "dumping" seems ambiguous as it might mean discarding. "Stockpiling" might be clearer.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - The article has lots of interesting pictures and it would be good to use one.
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is another impressive blockbuster but the title of the article and the hook need work, please. The pictures suggest an ALT. Something like "...that Anglo-Canadian logistics for the invasion of Germany used buffaloes, ducks and weasels?" Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have liked to mention Operation Veritable in the proposed hook but had problems getting it in under the 200 character limit. Operation Lumberjack was the US Twelfth Army Group's advance to the Rhine in February 1945. It was a preliminary to Grenade, as it was necessary to first secure the Roer dams. As noted in the article, Grenade was the US Ninth Army part of the Pincer operation. I regret that the articles on the battles of 1945 are in poor shape.I hope to improve them over time but the would be a major project.

The US had its own logistics organisation, known as the Communications Zone; its role in the 1945 campaigns will be covered in an upcoming article, "American Logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany". While the 21st Army Group was primarily a British and Canadian force, with a division from from Poland, brigades from Czechoslovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands, and some smaller contingents from other countries like Australia, the logistical system was British and came under the 21st Army Group. Stacey explains (p. 624):

As early as the beginning of 1943, it was evident that any concept of a completely self-contained Canadian Army, with its own supply-line stretching from the manufacturer in Canada to the troops in the field, would have to be abandoned. For one thing, a separate Canadian base organization, which would have been necessary under such a system, would have been too costly in. terms of manpower. In addition, the exigencies of battle might make it necessary at any time for Canadian divisions to be placed under the command of a British corps or for British divisions to be placed under the command of a Canadian corps, and under any such arrangement dual lines of supply would have been a vexatious complication. Thus, 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. Canadian units indented for warlike stores direct to their division's Ordnance Field Park, which carried stocks of spare parts for mechanical transport, small arms, armament, signal stores, and engineering equipment, as well as complete wireless sets and small arms. Bulk demands for artillery equipment, clothing and general stores were sent periodically by the formation's R.C.O.C. staff to a British Advanced Ordnance Depot.

I might add this to the article. I have added your suggested hook as ALT1. Reviewer would have to AGF as sources are offline. The original hook was chosen because its source was viewable online. "Dumping" is the correct by the way; the ammunition was already stockpiled in the maintenance area.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Good point about the logistics being British. I'm content with the ALT1 hook and that makes the "dumping" issue moot. If we go with that hook, then a picture would give away the nature of the buffaloes, ducks and weasels so I suppose we can shoot for the quirky slot instead. Let's move it along... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is uncontroversial, there's no objection, and it should take place immediately rather than waiting till tomorrow, as pages linked from the main page should conform to the MOS. Page views can be ascertained by adding together the two titles anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

---

British logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany → British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany – Invasion should be lower case per Wikipedia:Article titles#Use sentence case. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: to request this, just because of one capitalisation (and I read it three times not finding the difference), today when exposed on the Main page (so no move should happen), looks to me like an unwanted distraction from the content of the article. Can we discuss that later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster has a move discussion going on & it’s also on the main page, so I thought it’d be fine to initiate a move discussion. Discussing this a little later would probably be fine. I’d note that the capitalized “Invasion” on the main page is what initially drew my attention. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

How about suggesting a pipe to lower case for the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposal seems reasonable for consistency with Western Allied invasion of Germany. But it's a very minor matter and doesn't warrant the undue distraction of a banner tag while the article on the main page, as Gerda says. So, now that we have some discussion, we don't need the tag. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support of course. This could have been moved without discussion per WP:BOLD. Brandmeister^talk 10:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  no article should be moved while on the Main page, with all the connected templates that should not be redirects, and difficulty to tell the views for the things when it's under two names. Pipe on the Main page, as said above, - that would be the easiest solution. Move tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Any updates? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed
• Capitalize Bren

  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• A fair number of duplicate links.

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Down to Veritable, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Is there any explication of the G, Q and RA staff channels? I didn't see anything, but I could have missed it.

  It is rather complicated, with lots of archaic abbreviations. [2] I meant to write an article on it one day, but lost my source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Then perhaps reword it so that these names aren't used, emphasizing that the duplicate requests through different channels compounded the problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Can't say that I think that the bit about the FMC numbering sequences is important.

• Meh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that you fix the instances where you have quantities in digits adjacent to gun calibers in digits. Not a requirement here, but it will be a problem for you at ACR, where I assume this goes next.

  Not sure how to do that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Simply spell out the quantities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Y "the three hundred and thirty six 25-pounders" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• A Royal Navy Force U, under the command of Captain P. H. G. James Awkward. The commander doesn't matter and rework the rest of the sentence. "The RN allocated Force U..." or somesuch

• Y Re-worked. I wasn't sure if Captain Percival Henry Gwynne James was notable or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Seaborne tail" is a little repetitive. Find a different term or use pronouns

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Fix the link for chesses

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Very well done. Only a few quibbles to deal with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Add Oxford Comma to: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient". Making it: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional, and proficient". Mrlocochicken (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Oxford comma is optional in British English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But this comma would eliminate ambiguity, no? It just seems awkward is all. Perhaps reordering it to: "Proficient, professional, and experienced" would be better. The comma here would allow the sentence to flow while emphasizing the experienced portion of the sentence, which is arguably the most important quality. Mrlocochicken (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes Mrlocochicken: a serial comma there would indeed remove ambiguity and it is therefore highly advisable. Let's see: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient." Apart from the meaning that is presumably intended (that the army had three listed attributes), the sentence could be construed as giving "professional and proficient" as a gloss to expand on "highly experienced". Those who prefer to avoid serial commas at all costs are typically less able to spot such ambiguities.

Another instance, among several that I could show, where a serial comma would make things immediately clear for readers, rather than the structure being revealed only when the end is reached:

• The bivouac areas were provided with temporary billets, latrines, emergency rations and fuel, and medical teams and vehicle maintenance crews were on hand.

That reads at first as if "emergency" qualifies both "rations" and "fuel"; we are forced to review the whole sentence to disentangle its meaning.

In any case, WP:MOS calls for consistency in the deployment of the serial comma within any given article. The present text is obliged to conform to MOS (or is that no longer required?); but it fails to do so. There are many tone-deaf avoidances of the serial comma in it, but I find the following instances that demonstrate inconsistency (I've underlined relevant commas or absences of commas):

• ... which carried stocks of spare parts for mechanical transport, small arms, armament, signal stores, and engineering equipment, as well as complete wireless sets and small arms.
• In May 1945, the 21st Army Group had 25 BSDs, 81 DIDS, 35 field bakeries, and 14 field butcheries.
• A third bridge, called "Westminster", was commenced by the 6th Army Troops Engineers on 26 March, completed at 18:00 on 29 March, and ceremoniously opened by Dempsey the next morning.
• To compensate for this, to minimise casualties, and to maximise the combat effectiveness of what manpower they had, the British forces relied on machines, materiel and firepower.

Then there's this sentence: "It had a four store sections." Standards at WP are not what they were in my day. I see that Hawkeye7 is responsible for 99.4% of the text in this article, and is far and away its most prolific editor. The ill-advised punctuation choices of just one editor? An un-Wikipedian sense of ownership? ☺? 49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Oxford commas added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Done? It still does not comply with MOS (as a featured article must). For example this two-sentence excerpt shows inconsistency, with one use of the serial comma where MOS wants either two or none at all:

• This involved prodigious use of ammunition, fuel and equipment, which in turn demanded a first-class military logistics system. By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional, and proficient.

An illustration of the difficulties faced by anyone so old-fashioned (Boomer-like?) as to want minimal use of the serial comma, against a tide of good sense from the world's major style guides. Others, like the wretched and craven Australian Government Style Manual, are manifestly confused and vague on this point. Good God, AGSM even appeals to Truss L (2003) Eats, shoots and leaves for wisdom concerning commas! Surely WP can do better. ♥? 49.190.56.203 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a great book! Thanks for your help. I'll ping you next time I have an article at FAC and you can give it a squiz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Top of the article

The very top of the lead section says:

Main article: Western Allied invasion of Germany

However, this should not be used, as Template:Main says, This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{Main}} link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. So the above should be change into the following:

For broader coverage of this topic, see Western Allied invasion of Germany.

(Note: I did this because nobody seemed to change it in the more than 12 hours this has been a TFA.) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, they removed it. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@ 113.199.223.100 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Duck bill connectors

@Piledhigheranddeeper: My sources refer to the duck bills as "connectors" [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So noted. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong segments. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)