Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American services and supply in the Siegfried Line 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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

This is the second part of the treatment of American logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign. It chronicles a series of avoidable problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

Completely forgot I had taken this up, apologies. I have made some edits, feel free to reverse them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

developed from a reluctance to accept new, efficient, field-tested items presumably they weren't reluctant to accept better items so much as reluctant to accept new items which were actually better, perhaps developed from a reluctance to accept new items, even when field-tested and efficient,
Y Changed to "reluctance to accept new items".

Background

Operation Cobra, which commenced on 25 July, effected a turnaround in the operational situation by achieving a breakout from the Normandy lodgment area for a layman reader it may not be clear who is breaking out, perhaps Operation Cobra, which the Allies commenced on 25 July, effected a turnaround in the operational situation by achieving a breakout from the Normandy lodgment area
Y Changed to "which the First Army commenced on 25 July". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another army, the Ninth Army, suggest removing Another army
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Railways could not be repaired and pipelines constructed quickly enough I believe this and should be an or, or else Railways could not be repaired and pipelines were not constructed quickly enough
Y Changed to "Railways could not be repaired and pipelines could not be constructed quickly enough." but not sure what the basis for your belief is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Littlejohn did not like the M1943 jacket at all. suggest Littlejohn did not approve of the M1943 jacket.
Y Deleted "at all". Don't want to say "approve" as this has a different meaning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footwear

but it seems that the next generation was bigger suggest changing bigger to larger
Y Changed as suggested. Aside: another problem that recurred in the 1960s and 1990s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workarounds

The armies worked around the shortages in several ways. The main one was ammunition rationing. The American command setup was an obstacle here not a big fan of these sentences, perhaps: Although the American command setup was an obstacle, the armies worked around the shortages in several ways, especially through ammunition rationing.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it gave the 12th Army Group a much better picture of what was going on. suggest changing what was going on to the situation
Y "Situation" is another technical term, referring to operations. Changed to "a better picture of the stockpile". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

$2,391 million in 2019 suggest $2.391 billion in 2019
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks

the UK that had been acquired under Lend-Lease suggest the UK that had been acquired under the Lend-Lease policy
Lend-Lease was a law, not a policy. It is usually referred to this way. See the Lend-Lease article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid fuels

the like of which suggest just which had
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all of my suggestions, apologies again for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for the review. You're not the last I'm afraid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, nice work as usual. Sorry, I don't have time for a full review at the moment, so I have a few minor points, including a source review: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ext links all work (no action required)
all sources appear to be reliable based on authors or publishers (no action required)
spot checked citations 78 and 107 - 78 seems GTG; I couldn't see the date of 25 December mentioned on 107, though. Did I miss it in the source?
all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
in the lead, "Northwestern Europe" is overlinked
cold injury is overlinked in the Medical section
"In 1944–45" --> "In 1944–1945"

"with the 75mm gun M2–M6" --> non breaking space?
75 mm gun is overlinked in the Tanks section

Siegfried Line is overlinked in the Liquid fuels section
"woollen" --> "woolen" (US English?)
"standardised" --> "standardized"? (as above)
"despatched" --> "dispatched"? as above)
"lodgement" --> "lodgment"?
"totalled" --> "totaled"?
"armoured" --> "armored"
"recognise" --> "recognize"
"coloured" --> "colored"
"stablised" --> "stablized"

All these have been corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks, I will try to take a better look when I get back to a place with better internet (maybe in a few days, hopefully). In the meantime, a couple of the changes look a bit strange to me -- do Americans really use "improvize" and "supervize"? I could be wrong (I am more times than I would like), but that does not look correct to me. Can you please check? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They only spell the suffix -ize in words that came to English through Latin -izare. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize the article was meant to be American English (although that does make sense), I've had another look through the article and don't see anything that stands out as non-American, except the usage of "Smart" appearance which I don't think really shares meaning to the average American, who might consider the used meaning as somewhere near the fourth possible meaning if they are even aware of it. Perhaps "a well kept" would work better. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, it is written in American military. "smart" is one of those words the US Army is fond of. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below now: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead " when the American Army" --> "United States Army" (as a proper noun) or "American army"?
Y Changed to "American forces". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Eisenhower decided to continue the pursuit of the retreating German forces beyond the Seine" --> potentially clarify what the other option was? I assume pausing and stablising LOC?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"twelve divisions could" --> suggest linking divisions here
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"impressed by the British Battledress" --> "British battledress"?
Y d3e-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, back in the United States the Quartermaster Corps" --> "back" is probably unnecessary
Y Must be channelling Judy Woodruff here. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"look he desired,[23] He informed" --> replace the comma with a full stop
Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"even after the opening of Antwerp" --> link Antwerp?
Y An artifact of the split into two articles. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"However Stratton was unwilling" --> full name on first mention; comma after "However"?
Y And another. Expanded and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Three DUKW companies" --> link DUKW here and remove it from the subsequent mention
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"supported by SOLOC" --> has "SOLOC" been defined at this point?
Y No. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for bombers to delivery 41 percent of" --> "for bombers to deliver 41 percent of"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes you use the definite article and sometimes you don't, for instance "against Third Army's rail transport" v "contrast, the First Army had turned" --> suggest consistency
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A major problem here was insufficient training in their use." --> "A major contributing factor was insufficient training in their use"?
Y I like that one. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not quite sure about the Medical section being completely related to the topic of "supply" as such. When I saw the section header, I assumed it would be about the provision of Class VIII including blood products, rather than discussing casualty numbers, causes and backloading (arguablly not really a supply function, IMO). Potentially the article title could be "American supply and medical support in the Siegfried Line campaign"?
Supply and services? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Somervell released servicemen" -- full name on first mention?
Y And another... added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a T/O&E" v. "(TO&E)"
"designated for MTOUSA" --> has this been defined yet?
Y No. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"struck by the German Ardennes Offensive" --> lower case "offensive" for consistency?
Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in coal in sacks" --> "of coal in sacks"
Y Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"consequent rapid expansion the railways network" --> "consequent rapid expansion of the railways network"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

~~The American forces were struck with an epidemic of trench foot and frostbite [...] Neither of these are contagious.~~
Y The medical sources refer to it that way, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] between June to November [...] Recommend "between June and November" or "from June to November".~~
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Can you link military ranks?~~
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Link French towns too.~~
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[...] for which there were only fourteen berths. The situation hardly improved in October, at the end of which there were 80 ships and only eighteen berths. Every number greater than 10 should be rendered with a numeral.
Y Not quite: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (MOS:NUMBER); but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~By December, the backlog had not been reduced, but had grown [...] The middle clause here could be removed with no loss in quality to the prose.~~
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] through the minor ports in Landing Ships, Tank, (LSTs). The comma after "Tank" is unnecessary.~~
Parenthetical comma. Retained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh Army, which was supported by the Southern Line of Communications (SOLOC) instead of COMZ, and therefore drew its supplies from NATOUSA, received winter clothing by air on 26 September. I'm confused by the second and third clauses here.
Not sure what the problem is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Others contained items duplicating ones that had already been re-issued. Huh?~~
Not sure what the problem is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] 2,110,000 sweaters and 2,270,000. Missing word at the end.~~
Y Ooops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] a shortage of both in large and wide sizes. Superfluous "in"?~~
Retained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vami_IV, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty good; I shall return to this later today and finish up my read through and comments. I anticipate supporting as with previous Hawkeye articles. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 11:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~[...] but Eisenhower decided that logistic situation was sufficiently [...] "that the logistical situation was"~~
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Third Army commenced a major offensive [...] Which offensive was this? The Siegfried campaign?~~
Y The Battle of Metz. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a particular type looked as if it was going to be in short supply, the first army to recognize this could requisition as much as possible, thereby initiating the shortage and depriving the other armies of their fair share. The first time I read this, I got very confused.
Y Changed to: The first army to recognize that a particular type was going to be in short supply could requisition as much of it as possible, thereby initiating the shortage and depriving the other armies of their fair share.
~~[...] horizontal volute spring suspension (HVSS) [...] high velocity armor piercing (HVAP) [...] Neither of these acronyms are used again.~~
Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] taken away from bases sections [...] Is "bases" intentional here?~~
Y typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 00:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

A very well illustrated article. Having inspected them all, the following may need checking for author information, as it seems the source (PhotosNormandie) is credited as the author which is not right. Perhaps "Author unknown, but likely US Army/Navy/Government personnel"?

Yes, PhotosNormandie obtained US Army Signal Corps images. I have adjusted the credits on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanks are disembarked at Cherbourg.jpg
File:Unloading the oil tanker Empire Traveller at Cherbourg.jpg
Army Signal Corps photo (note Signal Corps id 198960-8 on the image)
File:Aerial view of an oil tanker discharging at the digue de Querqueville.jpg
File:Tanker trucks of the 3990th Quartermaster (Transportation Corps) Truck Company.jpg
File:Refilling jerricans from tanker trucks.jpg
Army Signal Corps photo (note Signal Corps id 198959-5 on the image)

The rest look to be appropriately licenced with US/CC tags. Zawed (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Zawed (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2021 (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.