Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Normandy Campaign/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [1].

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British Army's Normandy campaign in World War II. Wrote it on my summer vacation last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Look who've here? Welcome back mate, may I ask you which kinda English this article uses? British, American or Australian English? It wouldn't suprise me that it is written in Australian English. Also I'll do this one later I'd give you my comments within two days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British English. Added a {{use British English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

edit
Fantastic well researched article which breathes a new fresh perspective ino the Normandy campaign in 1944. When it comes to warfare logistics in general is definitely overlooked. An inspiration for future articles on same subject and a good link to related articles. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: the inclusion of a retrieval date for the Coles & Weinburg source seems unnecessary. The similarly-sourced Ruppenthal entry does not have a retrieval date.
  • No other issues. The sources are uniformly and consistently presented, and appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D

edit

I reviewed this article's GAN, and am very pleased to see it here. I have the following comments:

  • My main comment is that the lead doesn't match up particularly strongly with the body of the article - while the body is largely thematic, the lead is probably too focused on how the campaign played out. I'd suggest reworking the lead so it's more strongly focused on the nature of the logistics effort and the challenges which were overcome
    Added some more material to the lead. Not sure what is needed here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very good now Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while having the immediate effect of diverting British and Australian troops from the war against Germany" - not sure that the different nationalities need to be mentioned here, especially as lots of Indian troops and small numbers of NZ troops were also diverted to the Pacific
    Removed. The text echoed the original source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section could discuss the logistics-heavy nature of the British way of war in 1944. As all formations were motorised or mechanised and the British sought to use as much firepower as possible in order to keep casualties down, this made for extensive supply needs - much in excess of the largely unmotorised German Army for instance.
    Expanded to background to discuss this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The particularly challenging nature of amphibious/expeditionary logistics and the central importance of overcoming this challenge could also be noted - the entire operation hinged on the Allies' ability to move troops and supplies into Normandy by sea at a faster rate than the Germans could by land, with their success in doing so being a major achievement
    Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The RASC, the corps of the British Army responsible for most forms of supply and transport, was about 15,000 men short of its requirements." - when was this?
    In April 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the port of Courseulles-sur-Mer abandoned? Was it too small to be worth the bother once over-the-beach arrangements were sorted out?
    The source says it was found to be unsuitable for coasters. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bypasses constructed around villages with narrow streets that were suitable for one-way traffic only" - not sure if it's worth including, but various sources say that the ring road the British Army built around Bayeux was the first such road in France
    Do you have a source? I can add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to find a RS, though from memory there was a sign in Bayeux stating it. This and this state it. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Second Army employed only two of its eight infantry divisions, grounding the VIII Corps, so the transport of two could be used to help maintain the other six divisions" - this is a bit unclear - were two or six divisions active?
    An error. Corrected. The first "two" should have been "six". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape, and I had a close look at it during Milhist ACR, where nearly all of my comments were addressed. However, I think there is one area that undermines its comprehensiveness, mainly relating to the CMP, in both traffic management/control for the 150,000 vehicles in the lodgement area by late July, and PW handling, especially in the latter period when PW were not all being evacuated to the UK. I raised these at Milhist ACR, and my concerns there weren't really properly addressed. There is really nothing about main supply routes or traffic control and management, which must have been extensive. There are two small sections about PW, but no coverage of the PW handling system, what units were deployed to guard and administer PW, especially when at one point, there were 27,000 PW being held in Normandy with many employed on labouring tasks. This must have taken a considerable effort and troops to do, yet it isn't really covered at all, with no mention of any PW facilities established etc. CMP are only mentioned in relation to the fact that they were involved, and their inclusion in the beach groups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph on the activities of the provost, and I have expanded the bit about prisoners. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments:

  • link line of communication in the lead
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The emphasis of mobility over firepower turned out to be a mistake; it soon became apparent that mobility was impossible unless the enemy's firepower was suppressed" doesn't really follow in the context. Did the British Army really prioritise mobility over firepower? In what way? How was this demonstrated? In general, I think the Background section needs some attention to make it more focussed on the logistic challenges faced by the foreshadowed lodgement force. It currently jumps around between the interwar period, WWII, Battle of France, an indeterminate period when the British Army had a higher proportion of armoured divisions, Normandy, the Western Desert Campaign etc. It needs more structure and development, and would benefit from a chronological approach to the development of British logistics. The bit about Normandy doesn't belong in the Background.
    It is in chronological order. Dropped the sentence about mobility and firepower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question of when it was that the British had proportionally more armoured divisions hasn't been addressed, and there is still a mention of what happened later (in Normandy) in the Background section. I mean, the article is about the Normandy operation, so why include information about what actually happened during it before you've even covered the planning for the operation? Also, what stage is "Confronted by German defences..." referring to? Is this what was done in Normandy, or is it referring to the Western Desert Campaign or Italy? If Normandy, why is it here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the sentence on defences. Added "in June 1944". The point is that the British Army was more highly mechanised than its German counterpart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Its administrative doctrine→British Army administrative doctrine Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "logistical units had learned from practice" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The observations about the overall armoured to infantry ratio in the British and German armies is essentially meaningless for Normandy as it stands and should be narrowed to those engaged in the Normandy campaign. The British Army raised ~45 divisions during the war, not all of which were active at one time and they fought in various theatres. The German Army raised hundreds of divisions, scores of which were re-raised after destruction on the Eastern Front, and which fought in many theatres. The classification of divisions would vary based on being foot infantry, light, grenadier, motorised, panzer grenadier, and panzer on the German side, with some parsing on the British side based on the number of tanks and personnel carriers, halftracks etc per division. The armoured and motorised division proportion was different in each theatre (just look at the Afrika Korps versus the Eighth Army), with the largest infantry proportion in the east. Maybe limit this observation to the ratios in Normandy on D-Day to be directly relevant to this campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the British Army, there 21st Army Group in Normandy had three armoured divisions and nine infantry or airborne divisions. In Italy, the Eighth Army had two armoured divisions and six infantry divisions. Not much difference... but I don't have a German Orbat, so I have removed the sentence (although it is reliably sourced). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included 15 per cent were in"

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_logistics_in_the_Normandy_Campaign/archive1&oldid=901454874"