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.
Concluding article in the series on British logistics in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945, taking the story down to the conclusion of the war in Europe. (Its American counterpart is still in the works.) For some reason the campaigns of 1945 has not been covered in the literature or the Wikipedia nearly as well as those of 1944. Once again though, I have uncovered some striking images and maps and high quality sources. Hawkeye7(discuss) 03:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating topic for an article, and is in great shape. I agree that there's an odd neglect of the western Allied invasion of Germany in the literature - it was one of the most successful, and most important, campaigns of the war but is seemingly of little interest to historians. I have the following comments:
Either the first sentence of the lead or the article is too narrow, given that logistics for the RAF units involved in the campaign were also significant.
The background section should be broadened to note that the 21st Army Group was a multinational formation - the First Canadian Army should be noted, along with the presence of other smaller national contingents, though I think that most of them were used as part of the sieges in France in this period. As the article notes, all were dependent on British logistical support.
Y Already mentioned, but I've expanded it. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The background section should also note the logistical story for the 21st AG up to this point in the war - e.g. that it enjoyed good logistical support from the invasion of Normandy (which was needed and formed an explicit part of British Army doctrine which emphasised firepower and mobility to limit casualties), and various problems that affected it over the autumn and winter were largely ironed out.
Y Added a couple of paragraphs covering this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Organisation' section could note the contribution made by civilian workers in Belgium and France
I'd suggest weaving in a link to Surrendered Enemy Personnel somewhere in the material on German prisoners. The topic is somewhat controversial due to allegations the prisoners were mistreated after the war (largely by the French and Americans - the British seem to have treated their POWs relatively well).
During the war. Apparently 2.6 per cent of German prisoners held by the French died, compared with 0.1 per cent by the Americans, and 0.03 per cent by the British (and 35.8 per cent of those held by the Soviet Union). The whole point about Surrendered Enemy Personnel was that (contrary to what our article says) they were not POWs and were not treated as such. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second last para of the 'Beyond the Rhine' section notes this, and I'd suggest linking somewhere in here. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the post-war period is out of scope, it might be worth noting briefly the huge logistical problems the 21st Army Group faced as it transitioned to becoming an army of occupation - the German economy and transport system was destroyed and the population was facing mass starvation. One of the reasons rationing became even more strict in the UK after the war was the need to feed Germans in the British occupation zone. The occupation army also continued to receive a high standard of logistical support after the war.
It is not just a matter of it being outside article scope; it is also outside the scope of my sources. I will have to use different ones to write a paragraph at the end. Hawkeye7
The relevant volume of the British official history series has some good material on this, and is online at Archive.org [1]. As I said, it's somewhat out of scope. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I have a copy on the shelf here. Hawkeye7(discuss) 18:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments above are now addressed. The other comments are for consideration ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Although it contained personnel nations". Is there a typo here?
Looks like some text was left out. Changed to "personnel from many nations". Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This required major operations". If these were largely military, as opposed to, say, mine clearing, construction, rubble and boobytrap clearing etc, then perhaps 'required major military operations'?
The opposite of a railhead. I thought the reader would easily figure this out, but it is uncommon, so replaced with a different wording. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Montgomery sought to defeat Germany". Seems a little grandiose. With just the 21st Army Group?
Okay, the Russians did most of the heavy lifting. Re-worked the section. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In turn this demanded a high degree of organisation and professionalism required to utilise the available machines and firepower to best effect". This doesn't quite work grammatically. Consider removing "required".
By 1945 the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient. This is vague and somewhat redundant. I suggest the addition of just a little bit of context, especially since "By 1945" would suggest that this sentence is referring to the British experience of logistics throughout the war rather than the specific period of January to May 1945.
The offensive was supported by 600 field and 300 medium guns. Over 2.5 million rounds of 25-pounder ammunition were made available. Do the field and medium guns both shoot 25-pound shells?
This is an answer I as an individual unfamiliar with British artillery do not understand. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 25-pounder was the standard British field artillery piece in World War II and Korea. There are lots of them lying about in Australia. 25-pounderHawkeye7(discuss) 01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Petrol, oil and lubricants (POL) was [...] I wonder if this shouldn't be "were".
[...] from the UK [...] While there's no doubt at all that just about anyone who will read this article will know that "UK" here means "United Kingdom", and it's obvious from context anyway, I'll still highlight that this is the first time the acronym occurs in the article and without explanation.
MOS:ACRO: For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out.Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know the RAF flew jet fighters during the War! And that they ran on kerosene fascinates me. Yesterday's lamp becometh tomorrow's jet.
So much has been written about the German jets I think the Gloster Meteor may have been forgotten. Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
When did Montgomery assume command of the 21st Army Group? Before Overlord?
Petrol was brought in tankers and over the Operation Pluto pipeline. Is this petrol distinct from our old friend POL?
Yes. POL is all fuels. "Petrol" is the British word for motor spirit. It was originally a brand name, but long ago became the regular word. Americans call it "gasoline", which was also once a brand name. The main types of POL in use in the period were petrol (MT-80), aviation spirit (MT-100), kerosene (JP-1), distillate (diesel) and fuel oil (bunker fuel). Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[...] for which [Montgomery's] Allied forces were particularly suited; [...] As opposed to his Axis forces?
Y I see the ambiguity here. Dropped "Allied". Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Goldflake
The Combined Chiefs further decided to reinforce Eisenhower's armies in North West Europe at the expense of those in the Mediterranean. When/where was this decided?
Y At the Malta Conference. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is ration strength? Google has an answer, but I think the article should, too.
Y The article does tell you. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the rail stop there were messes and a kitchen that ran 24 hours a day. During the two-hour rail halt, the troops were served a hot meal and provided with sandwiches for the next one. For the next day or the next rail stop?
[...] and the divisions were issued with Arctic clothing and equipment that had been stockpiled for operations in Norway. ...from all the way back in 1940?
[...] while the attached II Canadian Corps continued to draw its from the First Canadian Army's No. 13 Army Roadhead at Nijmegen. [...] while the US 17th Airborne Division drew its from the US Ninth Army. Recommend "its supplies" as in the previous relevant clauses.
Additional supplies of fuel were loaded on DUKWs, which ferried fuel across the river until bridges were opened. This can be condensed with no loss in quality.
File:Advance from the Rhine to the Baltic.jpg - creation date is wrong
Y Must be when I uploaded it. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Operation Goldflake.jpg - with the current tag, you would need to include a tag for why it's PD in the US. This is presumably Canada Crown Copyright, so if that's the case switching to the crown copyright tag would work.
Y Yes. Canadian Crown copyright. Switched tags as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns with the other images. Hog FarmTalk 02:43, 6 May 2023 (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.