Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Northern France campaign

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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American logistics in the Northern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I split the article on US logistics in Overlord into two. This is the second part, covering the Northern France campaign - the breakout from Normandy and the pursuit to the German frontier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, great work as always. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Whew! Heck of an article. Ping me once all or most of AR's points are cleared - so I won't be repeated issues already picked up - and I'll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Your turn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The advance was much faster than expected". Possibly 'The advance was then much faster than expected'?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley fixated on Brest, which was only intended to be a port of reception for troops, and Saint-Malo, a minor port, whereas Patton focused on Lorient and Quiberon Bay." It may be worth at this point briefly indicating out what Lorient and Quiberon Bay were to be used for, as you have with Brest and Saint-Malo.
    checkY Moved the text on Operation Chastity here from the other article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the approaches were not cleared." "not cleared" → 'could not be cleared' may make things clearer for the reader. (By avoiding begging a question.)
    checkY Elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigadier General Pleas B. Rogers's Base Section No. 5, which had been specifically created for the role." It is not clear what role that is.
    checkY Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the beaches to Laval, 135 miles (217 km) distant, and then to Le Mans, another 175 miles (282 km) away." Is there a typo in there? Le mans is barely any further from the beaches than Laval.
    checkY Poor wording; Le Mans was 175 miles from the beaches. Changed to "another 40 miles further away". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receipts had fallen 97,510 US gallons (369,100 l) short of its 450,000 US gallons (1,700,000 l) requirements." Should "requirements" not be singular?
    checkY Not sure. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breaks in the line on 29 August forced truck units to draw MT80 from Saint-Lô, 80 miles (130 km) further away." Further away from where? At the last mention in the text the pipeline had only reached St Lo.
    checkY Re-ordered the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in July 1943, the Army Service Forces ordered 67,000 to be produced in 1944. The Truman Committee considered this wasteful, unnecessarily reducing the number of civilian trucks that could be built. Despite the adverse political pressure, the Army pressed on with the production program, but only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944." This doesn't really explain the shortage. If "the Army pressed on with the production program" for "67,000", how come "only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944."? Also 2,788 a month is an annual rate of 33,000, or half the required rate, which may be worth explicitly stating for the hard of math.
    checkY Added a bit more about why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ordnance personnel noted instances of vehicles that had been sabotaged." Any suggestions as to by whom?
    checkY By their drivers. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cracking article. Good explanations of complex topics, and excellent prose. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. A classic. Reads better than most chapter length treatments in books on the US in NW Europe 1944-45. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I reviewed this one at GAN, so there's probably not a whole lot I'm gonna catch here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
POL

That's all I've got, I guess I caught most of my points in the GA review. Excellent article, and none of these three points keep me from supporting now. Hog Farm Bacon 02:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (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.