Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My summer project. The British Army was always good at logistics. In this case, they had the expertise of men who had spent years fighting in the desert. Sourced from a stack of hard-to-find books. I would be interested in general feedback about the subject area as well as comments on the article itself. I would have thought that the subject of the article begs a couple of questions, but we'll see if anyone asks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

edit
  • "The support of the army group over the beaches and through the artificial Mulberry artificial port constructed for the purpose was logistical feat of the highest order." This statement is both POV and a little confusing.
    Where's the confusion? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have two prepositional phrases in this sentence (well, three but I'll focus on the first two). If you remove the first you get the sentence "The support of the army group through the artificial Mulberry port constructed for the purpose".... The "for the purpose" phrase refers back to "support" in an odd circular matter. I'd simply recommend removing those three words or rewording the sentence altogether. Now, I find the "of the highest order" to be a colloquial and POV, and it begs the question, "According to whom?" -Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    General Eisenhower for a start. I have removed the phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the Canadian First Army assumed control of the British I Corps on 21 June, the former passed to its control." Double use of control, maybe "command" or "responsibility" would be better.
    Control is "Authority that may be less than full command exercised by a commander over part of the activities of subordinate or other organisations." Tweaked the wording a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by "lodgement area"? Lodging and barracks, a logistical staging ground?
    A lodgement is an enclave taken by and defended by force of arms against determined opposition made by increasing the size of a bridgehead, beachhead or airhead into a substantial defended area, at least the rear parts of which are out of direct line of fire. Linked the lodgement article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except when directly quoting, don't use the word "enemy", as its POV. Wikipedia doesn't have "enemies"....nominally at least.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't mention that the landings occurred on 6 June 1944.
    checkY Good point. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsection "Mulberry" should probably just be "Mulberry harbours"
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any numbers regarding the LSTs and support ships (or other craft) that the British used for logistical purposes during the landings or during the larger campaign?
    checkY Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The FMA, which had been used in the Mediterranean Theatre was not part of British doctrine". Do you mean it was not called for in the planning? Also add comma after Theatre.
    checkY added a bit more explanation. And a comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 6 rounds per gun per day" 6 ---> six
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coasters began discharging inside the breakwaters" Does this mean unloading?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A terrible storm swept over the channel" Terrible is a little dramatic, perhaps "heavy" or something else.
    checkY Changed to "severe". Added a bit about how bad it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small ports were utilised. Courseulles, a small port". A little redundant.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article says manifests were "flown across" the channel. Was supplies also flown in?
    It's referred to down below. "Provision had been made in the Overlord plans for supply by air. Apart from supplying the Polish 1st Armoured Division for a short time, little use had been made of this, with the RAF freight service accounting for less than 200 long tons (200 t) per week." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mixture of tea, sugar and powdered milk in the ration packs was widely disliked, and advantage was taken of an order authorising the issue of tea, sugar and milk to troops engaged in "heavy and arduous" night work." Did the order specify that the items were delivered separately, unlike in the unpopular mixed fashion?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, casualties among the infantry were particularly severe; although that were only 20 per cent of the British force, they took 70 per cent of the casualties." Confusing and some grammar issues. Do you mean the the 21st Army Group took 70% of the casualties, or that the British infantry collectively took 70% of the casualties?
    checkY Changed the wording to: "although infantry made up only 20 per cent of the 21st Army Group, they took 70 per cent of its casualties."
  • "Vehicle maintenance had to be neglected, but this gave few problems". The use of the word "gave" usually includes an indirect object as well. Suggest adding one or changing the word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Tweaked wording to: "Vehicle maintenance was neglected, but this presented few problems as most of the vehicles were new." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A minor crisis developed due to a shortage of jerry cans." The shortage is well described, but the "crisis" is not. Were there fuel shortages, or were crews forced to use other containers for fuel?
    checkY Shortages. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very interesting read and a nice companion to the Operation Overlord article. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle just clarifying, are you supporting as a result of your review? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's in order except part of my first comment still remains unaddressed, though its a minor point. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle and Hawkeye7: G'day, Indy, do you mean in the Outcome section where it still mentions "highest order"? If so, I wonder if attributing this opinion might resolve your concern? For instance, "...was described by X as a logistical feat of the highest order"? Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seeing as it is an ambiguous phrase that can only really be accounted as an opinion of praise. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great subject for an article. I'll handle this in several tranches I imagine:

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • what did the Beach Sub Areas consist of?
    There's an OrBat in the Beach Groups article, but I'm not going to list them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are two things that are needed here, which would basically address a significant part of my longer comment above. A breakdown is needed of what beach groups (just by number) were part of which beach sub areas, and there needs to be a sentence or two explaining the mix of units included in the beach groups (not a full orbat of each one, just that they were based around an infantry battalion, and included RN, medical, ordnance, pioneer, REME, RASC, RE, MP and RAF elements). Including this will also help explain how a beach group eliminated a strong point, given the implication as it stands is that they were a purely logistic beast. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was at the roadheads?
    checkY "Each army roadhead had a CRASC Supply Units, who controlled two BSDs, four DIDs and four mobile field bakeries, and a CRASC Petrol Installations, who controlled five petrol depots." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's all that were there? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so; but they were but the nucleus of the RMA, which contained depots of all kinds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • what were in the FMA/FMCs?
    checkY Added: " The FMCs were manned using corps resources; each had two DIDs, a petrol depot, a transport company and two RASC composite platoons drawn from corps troops composite companies. Where possible, an MPFC was attached to each FMC. Occasionally they had to be reinforced with some additional transport platoons from Second Army. This organisation allowed an DMC to be operated while another was established. Each FMC held two days' rations and one day's maintenance stocks, two or three days' petrol, which was about 200,000 imperial gallons (910,000 l; 240,000 US gal), and 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) of ammunition." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maintenance would have to be over open beaches" to me this is an odd use of maintenance in a military setting, as it generally relates to equipment maintenance. Supply?
    "Maintenance: All supply and repair action taken to keep a force in condition to carry out its mission." (DOD dictionary)
  • It's a little unclear how the coasters fitted into this Mulberry arrangement. Did the larger ships discharge into the coasters which then discharged at the Mulberry, or did they sail from the UK?
    checkY Ocean-going vessels from North America discharged at ports in the UK. Coasters were loaded at ports in southern England and sailed across the English Channel. (It isn't that far.) Added that the coasters came from England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, LSTs had to be dried out" does this mean they were beached in the loaded condition, then refloated when the tide came in a discharged?
    checkY No, they were beached in the loaded condition, discharged while beached, and refloated and pulled away. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • how did the beaching cause damage?
    I'm not sure. I mean, I can think of all sorts of things, but I've checked the primary sources, and they don't specify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • POL in full at first mention
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rear maintenance Area → RMA already introduced
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Hhospitals"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • some numerical identifiers for the older texts would be helpful
    checkY Added what I can. Stymied with Maintenance in the Field Volume II. It doesn't have an OCLC entry, although there is a copy in the War Memorial. Having bought Volume I many years ago, I searched in vain for a copy of Volume II. Eventually, I wrote a Bot to conduct a search for it every month. The Bot ran for eight years before informing me that it had located a copy for sale in 2016. So I bought it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few duplinks that might need tidying.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Great work. I will read through again and clarify any of the points above as needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few final points.
  • Signals is a combat support arm rather than a combat arm.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • if "A Line of Communications Headquarters (HQ)" is the same as "HQ Line of Communications", suggest using the same terminology, and moving the last sentence of that para (about Naylor) to after the 54th Division at the top of it
    checkY That's a good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be useful to have a short explanation that corps and division had their own integral logistic elements, and briefly explain what they were, and how the corps and divisions replenished themselves (was it the push or pull method?).
    checkY Added a few words. The different between corps and division was that the former had organic logistics elements. The supply system was "push" up to the FMCs, from whence the divisions drew whatever they wanted. With the caveat of the express coasters. Added a bit about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: great effort as always, Hawkeye. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Lingzhi

edit
The 1952 edition has an OCLC [1]. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: G'day, Indy, unfortunately I think that OCLC relates to Volume I, where the 1961 book is Volume II. Please see Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, was about to some gnomish edits but noticed this review...

JennyOz (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my queries, regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

edit

@Hawkeye7, I am closing this but curios if, per your your opening statement, the questions were posed of you. I was meaning to look at this and still want to but it is a "round-to-it". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/British_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign&oldid=954123292"