Talk:Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign

Number of carriers

Hi @User:Hawkeye7, just reading the part where it cites McCarthy (p 264) that there were about 9,000 carriers on the track at the start of October. McCarthy's text is a little cagey in that it might suggest that these were "on the track" does not state it in such a way that is categorically clear. Rogerson (p 12), the source of your other figures, continues to say that a month later [that is October] the number forward for the advance on Kokoda had dropped to 1,000. I have cited McCarthy (p 308) that in late October there were 1,250 forward of Myola and none in the rear. Rogerson (p13) reports 16,000 odd conscripted into the ANGAU by December. I would suggest that the figure of 9,000 odd were conscripted by the ANGAU for all work and not specifically on the track. This is how I read it. I would be interested in what Powell has to say on it (if anything) but I don't have this work atm. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing like working on the Second World War to give you an appreciation of Charles Bean. I have Powell, but it doesn't say anything. I will dig deeper. The main other users of native labour woulkd have been the base section and the Bulldog LoC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression they were also still used for plantation work under the ANGAU, being essential for the war effort but I couldn't give you a source. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have the ANGAU Native labour statistics from 31 January 1944 (AWM 506/5/11). At that time, there were 23,043 Papuans and New Guineas employed by ANGAU. Nearly all of them were parcelled out to US and Australian military units, large and small. Most (13,335) were working in the base areas at Bulldog, Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Goodenough, Kiriwina and Woodlark. They were doing, well, everything. They were working in the hospitals, the laundries, the messes. Many were skilled workers. There were 664 working in ANGAU sawmills and just 323 working on ANGAU copra, rubber, rice and coffee plantations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

While we might agree to disagree on a handful of other matters, this really needs to be resolved as it is not the number working on the track. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Pls check

@User:Hawkeye7, You might like to look at this. I think there might be some misplaced words: "Because the tracks were narrow, they talk the animals to walk in single file, lead by a mounted rider at the front and trailed by one at the rear of the column. Each animal carried 160 pounds (73 kg) of stores, which were packed in backs to facilitate their transfer to Papuan carriers." I could take a guess but I thought I would go to the horses mouth (couldn't help myself). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Should have been "talk" and "bags". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Similarly, "using the horses from the state there", the meaning here isn't clear. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Should have been "from the station" Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Re: "The 1st Pack Transport Company took over the work in October, and the 1st Independent Light Horse Troop became one of its sections." Did it literally become a section within one of the platoons or is it perhaps better to say it was absorbed into the company (or something similar)? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

McCarthy, p. 264: "It was then reorganised as a section of a pack transport company." Lindsay, p. 258 "The original unit was restructured as 7 Pack Transport Company". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Up to you but I think I would take the lead from Lindsay since "section" has both a figurative and a literal meaning. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pack transport companies had sections, not platoons. I've taken it literally, but I'm going to look it up. In the meantime, I have changed the text to "The 1st Independent Light Horse Troop was absorbed into the 7th Pack Transport Company" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Re:"The 7th Division Australian Army Service Corps (AASC) assumed control of the Track on 10 September." Was the AASC identified as a battalion (say 7th Div AASC Bn) or was it a collection of independent companies controlled by 7th Div HQ log cell? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The latter. At this stage, the 7th Division had three AASC companies (2/4th, 2/5th, 2/6th) under Headquarters, 7th Division AASC. There was a commander, AASC (CAASC). Like the engineers and medical services, it was not organised as a battalion. In the early stage of the war in the Middle East, each company specialised in supplies, POL or ammunition; but before the campaign in Greece, they were reorganised so each could handle all commodities. After the Kokoda Track campaign, the AASC was reorganised again, into a general transport company (2/153) and a supply depot company (2/2). Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest: "From 10 September, responsibility for control of logistics along the track fell to the Commander Australian Army Service Corps (CAASC) 7th Division, insert name if known ...". as I tried to say below, it is perhaps a subtle point but the CAASC did not assume control of the track (Allen did) but for the logistics.Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The CAASC 7th Division was LTCOL E. L. Smith NX435; but he was in hospital during the Kokoda Track campaign, so LTCOL G. A. Richardson NX432, normally the CAASC I Corps Troops acted as CAASC 7th Division. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Re: "assumed control" - a subtle point perhaps but Allen assumed control of the track. Having said that, NGF still maintained control of airdrops so it is not just a straight forward simple fix. The control exercised by Blamey is a significant issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote: "7th Division Australian Army Service Corps (AASC) assumed control of the Track". NGF didn't have control of the airdrops; they were still under AAF. Theoretically, requests had to go through GHQ, but in practice Morris would talk to Scanlon, and later Blamey to Whitehead, who replaced Scanlon in September. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

NGF was the controlling authority. Requests had to go through NGF not direct to AAF. Blamey subsequently exercised control over where supplies were dropped. To this extent (a significant extent), 7th Div did not control the logistics on the track. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• "the carry was short, and despite the fact that there were no suitable air dropping zones," I thin the point is that the LOC was so short that there was no need for dropping? To this extent, I think it is a bit redundant? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  The point is that supply was almost entirely overland until new drop zones were secured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Then this is what should be said, noting that drops were made at Nauro (about a days march in) with a DZ being cleared on 3-4 Oct (McC p 263). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  There is an issue with this. The present text implies that the lack of DZs was material at this early point - that carriers were used because there was a lack of DZs. In fact, DZs were not sought because it was within the capability of the carriers and there would have been significant wastage by dropping that outweighed any advantage by dropping. It is not a case of "despite" but rather, that they were not required. Supply was entirely overland and did not need to be otherwise until it reached a critical point of "diminishing returns". The text, as it reads, suggests that airdrops would have been preferred but could not happen for a lack of suitable DZs. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Only two of the original 14 pilots It was redesigned the 21st Transport Squadron on 3 April." A fragmented sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• You report two different aircraft types landing the troops at Kokoda on 26 July. McCarthy (p 126) says that there were only two aircraft serviceable that day. I am pretty certain it is Anderson that says that it was the same aircraft (and hence the spacing in the landings) that made the landing that day but I don't have him atm - if it wasn't him, then I am sure it has definitely been stated. I'm not saying you are wrong by any means. I am saying that there is a conflict in the sources. As an aside, Owen landed there on 24 July but I don't know what in. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'm trusting Kelly because he knows which aircraft it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  I think it appropriate to note discrepancies in sources and provide a balanced view. It is reasonable to trust Kelly. A footnote could then read something like: "Anderson (p?) reports that a single plane made both lifts; however, Kelly is able to identify two separate planes by type". As I said though, I don't have Anderson atm though I am reasonably certain this is where it comes from. If I could confirm Anderson, I would make the change myself. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  I haven't got Anderson here though, so it will have to wait until I find a copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  I am back in the big smoke and was able to get Anderson today. I have made a note to the above effect (also citing Kelly - if I got that right). If you are happy with what I have added, then this can be marked as resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)_

  PS Moremon provides more info on this. PS see the note I have just revised in the main article. It gives some reason to doubt Kelly without confirming what actually happened against primary sources.[1]

  per my edit as note. Unless you disagree

  Resolved

  Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Regarding the missing rations. It is Moremon's hypothesis that these were dropped at Myola 2. The problem is that Myola 2 was used in the Australian advance. It is hard to imagine that there was no sign 35,000 rations and other stores having been dropped there without any sign that was later remarked upon - unless the possums carried off everything. This is the counterpoint that I have previosly observed (less the possums). You note that NGF staff initially assumed that stores sent were received (Keogh p 204-205) and that a system of daily checks were put in place (Keogh p 204-205). The issue is when these checks were put in place. Lieutenant Fayle, Allen's aide-de-camp, commented that: "The whole fact of the matter, and NGF seemed unable to understand all through the campaign, was that recoveries were never 100 per cent of the supplies dropped and wastage was at times terrific." Where did the rations go? Some may well have been dropped into Myola 2 or elsewhere into the never-never somewhere else. Others were unrecoverable or unusable. My hypothesis is that the discrepancy arose from a failure to close the feedback loop, with staff failing to confirm what had been received as opposed to what had been sent - something that was not done until later (and is thereby supported). There may also have been a failure to account for consumption. Even if consumption was accounted for at the NGF end, a discrepancy in what was sent v's what what arrived and was then consumed would create a significant discrepancy. My point is that Moremon's hypothesis (though not having read it) lacks confirmation where there should reasonably be evidence beyond speculation to give it credibility. The article, as it stands, gives credence to Moremon's hypothesis. I think that the alternative is much more creditable. One does not have to delve into analysis or synthesis to leave the matter open for the reader to draw their own conclusions. I think that this is what should be done. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  In later campaigns there were parachutes, some coloured, and well-organised recovery efforts, and recovery hovered at around 50%. A lot of stuff just disappeared in the long grass; much was dropped outside the drop area. Things must have been much worse during the Kokoda Track campaign, as containers would break open and scatter the contents. About 180,000 lb of rations were despatched in August; the supply summary that shocked Rowell showed about 27,000 lb at Templeton's Crossing and 3,900 lb forward of that. Do we need to assume a gross error? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not gross error - no, unless you call a failure to close the feedback loop at this earlier time a gross error? At present, the idea of closing the feedback loop is well separated from the issue of the missing rations as is the rate of loss. Horner quoted Fayle in regard to to issue. I think the possible reasons should be put to the reader. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence to support Moremon's hypothesis. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  All I have said is that "drops may have been made at the wrong one". I have kept it in because it is also important for the readers to understand that the maps were no good. I have moved the two paragraphs on the problems of air dropping up so the readers will get a better picture. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be removed. I have added a note. If it is your intention "for the readers to understand that the maps were no good", then perhaps this should be stated more clearly. I believe there are other sources that make this point in this context. I still think that the last para in this section needs to be drawn closer to the issue of the missing rats and the issue it addressed "for the readers to understand" and make the connection. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC) {{resolved}}

  I notice that Williams argued that the Japanese found supplies in the area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  I don't have him here atm but I will have a look at it. I know that they got sick on tainted rations left a Myola 1. Pretty certain in Brube ABoaP but I don't have that either atm. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  If you mean at p 124, he states "Myola" and does not refer to Myola 2. I remember reading that supplies might be dropped over a mile or more if the pilot was reluctant to make multiple passes. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  I note that the footnote I added in resolution has been deleted with the comment that it was unsourced. It is a valid statement, even if you wish to modify it wrt Williams and it is consistent with WP:Blue. Your rationale for deleting the note is a logical conundrum. Moremon makes an argument to support his hypothesis but provides no proof of evidence where the evidence might reasonably exist if it were to account for the 35,000 rats and other war stores. It is valid to observe the deficiency in his hypothesis. Furthermore, the possibility of evidence coming to light diminishes with time. The possibility that something might "turn up" that has not previously been found is an ever decreasing possibility. This is not to say that it does not account for part of same, however, it is not the answer in total (without proof). Balance dictates the need to report his hypothesis but also, it dictates the need to report the deficiency in it - the absence of proof. The logical conundrum is quite Popperian. Because we can't prove that green Martians don't exit, must we always surmise that green Martians might exist? This matter is now not resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Heavy loads were not practical for air dropping missions, since the aircraft had to side-slip at low speed in order to arrive low and slow over the drop zone." The meaning of "had to side-slip" is not clear and I have some understanding of flight dynamics. Needs to be clarified? I would think this is a cross-wind issue too (on the plane and not just the parachutes) but the meaning is not clear at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  Linked to the Wikipedia article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Phoned a friend. The problem with a heavy load is that you need more airspeed to maintain lift. A headwind creates airspeed for a lower ground speed - as I am sure you are aware. You don't "have to" side-slip to arrive over a DZ - side-slip is dictated by the approach and the prevailing wind. A side-wind for a given approach and weight (load) will require a higher airspeed and consequently, a higher ground speed (once you factor in all the vectors) - thereby making it harder to achieve the requisite (low) speed for a larger load without crashing into the ground at such a low altitude. My point is, "had to side-slip"? This probably comes under wp:jargon. I don't doubt that this is sourced. I would say that there is a simpler way to say why weight was an issue. Furthermore, the link doesn't make things much clearer. At present, it is a bit of a "black box" statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• "Packaging was primitive and inadequate, even for normal handling under New Guinea conditions". The second part has no real meaning? What are "normal handling under New Guinea conditions"? Suggest removing or elaborating. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  This takes us into territory beyond the Kokoda Track campaign. If your experience with soldiering is from the post-WWII period, this might come as a shock. There were no one-man rat packs or ten-man packs made of waterproof cardboard with metal straps! Everything was in the bags, boxes and tins of the giant economy size at the market. Everything was left outside in the tropical rain. Tins rusted and "blew". There are pictures of mountains of tins where the labels have fallen off and what was in them was anyone's guess. At one dump there was a sign: "Lucky dip: Take one!" If you were lucky it was peaches; if not, it might be bully beef. The Army had the manufacturers (there wasn't much canning in Australia before the war - the US and Australian Armies paid to set up the industry) stamp the contents on the cans and leave off the labels. Blamey wanted the cans to be flat and square like sardine tins so you could heat and eat straight from the can, but this proved too difficult to do. He asked why they didn't heat their food with hexamine tablets - that's what they used to use in the trenches in WWI - but they didn't have any; he had to find a supply in Australia. "Tropic proofing" was a major effort that affected nearly everything; but it occurred in 1943, not 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added a sentence about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not so much of a shock. Works much better now. BTW, you can heat and eat regardless of the shape of the tin by denting the tin and pressure cooking it until the sides pop. I also remember the "lucky dip" with 10 man packs if you were on the go and had no time to bring it together to make a meal and you and your weapon-pit buddy only had tiny taters between you.Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• "was absorbed into the 7th Pack Transport Company". Should this be 1st, not 7th? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  No, the 7th. My bad. The 1st relieved the 1st Light Horse Troop on the Track, and it became part of the 7th. Unfortunately, the War Diary of the 7th was never written or was lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  So the 1st Pack Transport Company was redesignated the 7th Pack Transport Company? If so, this should be stated? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  No, they were two separate units. The 1st took over the work on the Track. Then the 7th was formed in Port Moresby using the 1st Light Hordse Troop as a nucleus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Then this needs to be clarified to say these things as the progression and who did what when isn't clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• "The widespread use of a scarce drug was a gamble, but one that paid off." This is a bit of a hanging statement - paid off how or to what extent. Think it needs something to close the loop as it were. Also "widespread use of a scarce drug" is a bit of a contradiction. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• On the matter of Malaria. The climate around PM was relatively dry and should have mitigated the risk. However, despite this, the incidence was high. Although malaria was an issue at each end of the track, primary infection was not an issue along the track. The rate of malaria quoted is for NGF and is inclusive of Milne Bay! If the article is about Kokoda, then these statements need to be contexturalised. Certainly, at Milne Bay and the at Buna-Gona, the impact was near catastrophic. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• Dysentery were not just a result of poor hygiene by the allies. The Japanese also contributed to the Allied problem as the Australians advanced - what is more, it was a battlefield that they advanced into. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  It was certainly a problem among the Japanese, but there was no epidemic among the Australians during the advance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• "Every effort was made to allow the wounded to walk back down the Track." This is a fairly flaccid way of stating the harsh realities of the situation during the withdrawal - which I have cited. There is also a contradiction in that casualties were evacuated forward: "Eventually, they were evacuated forward, to Kokoda, and flown out from there." Sources I have quoted indicate that casualties at Myola were "eventually" carried back? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• Re Maroubra, the initial order was for the 39th and then amended to less a company but only one company was deployed forward before the landing. As I read it, the rest were deliberately held back. The main page has a ref to the Op Inst. It is just a matter of making the articles consistent to the extent that there was only B Company forward at the time of the landing. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved

• There is some mixing of primary units, particularly in geography. Personally, my science background says that the primary unit in any citation should match the citation but apparently WP doesn't like mixing primary units. It doesn't upset me but it might others. Up to you. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  I have a science background too. I would do it that way too. I have set the article to metric, per MOS:UNITS. The only place I see trouble in is the Shipping section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  I might have left Imperial as the primary unit given most of the sources would have been in Imperial. But metric probably keeps more people happy. I will have a look through for significant figures though.

  Resolved

• The initial evacuation plan was to evacuate forward to Kokoda and assumed its recapture. You may or may not wish to mention this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• II would note that the stores dropped in belly tanks on 12 August arrived too late and were dropped to the Japanese. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I have been going through Moremon. He notes the impact on supply of using carriers for medivac - it is not a seamless backload. A litter travels 3 times slower and results in 16 loads per day less going forward (as they were carrying over quarter day stages (half day turnaround) Moremon p 188-189. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am reading the effect of waterlogging of packaging significantly decreasing the effective weight of stores being carried - Moremon pp183-184 Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Moremon (p182) refers to flight crews (at the early stage at least) being on short rotations such that each crew had to re-learn where and how to drop and this short rotation contributed increasing losses. I am finding him a good read and insightful. only observation is about the hypothesis of the missing rats and while Myola 2 may account for a portion, in the absence of a body of evidence it would have left, it is not "the" answer. As I have suggested (and is supported, "the" answer is likely to be a failure to close the feedback loop together with losses from all causes. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I note that you refer to "the Track" (ie caps for track). While I am not opposed to the capitalisation of a shortened form of a proper noun I believe this is contrary to MOS Caps. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have added two notes to the main article you might look at. Firstly, regarding the use of blankets as packaging was not initially used and secondly, Potts' fighting withdrawal was dictated by the rate at which casualties could be moved back. While I have addressed these as notes in the main article, they probably need to be addressed here. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• The scathing quote from Norris in the main article about the lack of planning by the gov for air ambulances should come across. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  I've explained what aircraft were used and why. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  I have added the quote since, while you have explained what aircraft were used and why, It does not address the question Norris posed. Consider now resolved unless you disagree. {{resolved}} Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Strike resolved tag - edit removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  This is a significant issue in that it is raised in the official history and should not be swept under the carpet. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  It's nonsense. No. 1 Air Ambulance Unit had been active for two years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  But not in this theatre. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think that the quote from Lieutenant Fayle is significant in explaining the missing rat and should migrate. If your article is to substantially replace what I have written in the main article, these are some of the things that I don't want to get lost in the washing. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  The article already explains this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reading Walker, the crashes at Myola appear to be because of boggy ground at the ends of the strip. Kienzle (in Kienzle) tried desperately to improve this. He wanted some psp but this wasn't forthcoming. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Kienzle 's arithmetic is wrong. The Marston Mat sheets were 15" across and 10' long, so a 100' x 5,000' runway required 60,000 of them. The only way to get them to Myola would have been to have carriers carry them down the Track, and the only source would have been the mat laid at Rogers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  I don't have it here with me so I can't say that he wanted to make a strip 100 x 5000 or just improve the end? There is a big difference and I don't think he was so naive as to expect 60000 could be carried overland. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Kienzle (R) is incorrect in her maths by a factor of 10. She does indicate the intent was to address the boggy end and notes that the trimotor crashed after the runway markings were "moved". She notes the subsequent recommendation of the Air Board and MacArthur's response. I think it is worthy of mention if only in a note. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  I note that she incorrecty describes a nose plant as a ground loop. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Re the evacuations from Myola. Neither McC p316-317 nor Walker p76-77 specify the type of Stinson - simply that it was a single engine type. Do you have a source? I note that the AWM pics of planes at Kokoda include both LO1 Stinson and LO3 Aeronica.

  [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  [3] misidentifies this as an L-3 but the nose cowling is distinctively of an L-1 (not 2 or 3) so, as you amended, the AWM dows get it wrong sometimes and I sent them a message. The messageboard probably isn't of itself a WP RS. Perhaps an AWM photo at Myola might be cited as I did in the main article. I note that Stinson made a number of single engine aircraft and the sources don't specify type or even that they were necessarily military aircraft. While I am not saying they weren't L-1s, this is unsourced. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Another example in the image in the article of a DC-2. The AWM caption said it was a C-47, but I could see at a glance that it was not a C-47, as they had a 7' wide cargo door that could accommodate a jeep. Since the tail number was visible, I could look it up, and found that it was a DC-2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  My tacit agreement - with some reservation as to the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Walker indicates Brig Johnson's intent for cases to be carried forward to Kokoda. It does not unambiguously state that this happened. Further, McC (quotes him): "For those still bedridden, native porters were finally obtained in sufficient numbers to act as stretcher bearers and after being shut up at Myola for some two and a half months, the last patients, together with the remainder of the unit, arrived back in the Port Moresby area, after their long trek, a day or two before Xmas." It is written in such a way as imply they were evacuated rearward. Moremon does state that they were evacuated forward (p328-329) citing Nicholson, 'The early days of supply dropping in New Guinea and evacuation of wounded'. Brig Johnston quoted in McCarthy, South-West Pacific Area, p.317. Walker, The Island Campaigns,pp.76-77. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  The footnote points to Pilger, p. 60:

  In late November, following the Australian break-through at Eora Creek, the Japanese were driven out of Kokoda and the cases still held at Myola were evacuated forward-a most unusual procedure-carried by native bearers to the Kokoda airstrip and thence to Port Moresby and base hospital by air.

  Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Thankyou for the quote as I wansn't able to access the article and would have checked it if I could. I would observe, given what is at best, ambiguous statements in the official histories, it is probably worth a note of clarification - to, at least observe the ambiguity and reconcile the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added note and unles you disagree ... {{resolved}} Cinderella157 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Strike resolved tag - edit removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  There is an inconsistency with the official history (even if it is that the official history is ambiguous) that should be reconciled. You were unhappy with my solution. Do you have an alternative? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  Already done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

• Should you mention the initial supply of the 39th by coastal vessel? Moremon (about p 114 & 122) has details and some commentary. Paull identifies it as the Gili Gili. Can't give you a page as I don't have it and I won't be held to the spelling. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  It was the Gili Gili. It is on Paull, pp. 40-42. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Pretty certain the 39ths war diary also mentions. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  It does. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• From Moremon (p326)): "The 2/lst Battalion's RMO estimated that 20 per cent of his battalion was suffering from pronounced dietary deficiency" as they approached Oivi just before 5 November. It is a remark that indicates that despite air drops and carriers, the system wasn't coping. Furthermore, their performance would be down too. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. Moremon says:

  Ordnance [sic - he means AASC] staff at Bolo had compounded the problem by failing to adjust dispatches to reflect the urgency of the situation; for example, they had been forwarding at least 13 commodities of ration (bully beef, biscuits, tea, sugar, salt, dried fruit, jam, butter, milk, cheese, tinned fruit, tinned vegetables and bacon) which was a 'luxury' for front-line troops; it is not clear what quantities actually reached Maroubra Force, but Allen's staff took the last seven items off the ration scale to free up capacity and reduce confusion. (p. 244)

By doing that, they removed important vitamins from the men's diet, particularly B group vitamins, thereby exposing the men to vitamin deficiencies. Now, vitamins were only discovered in the 1920s, and were a new thing even in the late 1930s. Many medical officers wouldn't have understood their importance. (Stanton Hicks addressed the problem in 1943 by adding Vegemite to the ration.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

At the same point in Moremon: "The carrier lines bringing supplies from Kokoda were welcomed by Lloyd's 16th Brigade, which had run desperately short of rations in their approach to Oivi. The men had been forced to scrounge in gardens for pawpaws, sweet potatoes and cucumbers but they were still 'perpetually hungry, and one soldier complained that his guts were flapping against his backbone'". Noting that Vasey was advancing on two axies at the time.

As an aside, is the Japanese diet by comparison, which included a number of commodities to ensure its balance - including bran mixed with the rice I believe, apparently to the disgust of the troops. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It already mentioned dietary deficiency, but I've expanded it an bit. (In 1943, Hicks discovered that Australian bread was low in gluten. While the Vegemite was a success, the blue peas never took off.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The casualties at Myola were then evacuated forward, to Kokoda, and flown out from there." But it was just short of Christmas before the last were to reach PM. Present text suggests this occurred directly following the capture of Kokoda. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  So what are we checking? The movement of casualties from Myola to Kokoda to Port Moresby? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  The present text suggests that casualties were evacuated forward from Myola to Kokoda (and the PM) almost immeduately following the capture of Kokoda where in reality this took another six odd weeks to be effected. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  Re-written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Should you mention the Brown River road here (cf Moremon)? It is not mentioned in the main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  Added a mention. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• kienzle in Kienzle (p147) reports that Bert did know of the second lake Myola 2 and it was located by him. This needs to be reconciled. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  Seems unlikely, but re-worded to cater for this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has already passed Milhist A-Class review, so I doubt it will struggle to pass GAN. I'll just give it a quick once-over to see if there are any tweaks to be made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• suggest linking Kokoda Track campaign in the lead

  Y It was linked. Changed to make this explicit at the cost of some repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• in the lead, air transport and native carriers are mentioned, then they are expanded on in the opposite order (carriers then air), perhaps reverse one or the other to improve logical flow?

  Y Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• the 39th Battalion and 53rd Infantry Battalions

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• might be worth mentioning the 7th Division was AIF?

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• when ANGAU is mentioned for the first time, it might be worth explaining what it was/did straight away as it is important to the native carrier part of the logistics story

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "This represented a dangerous situation" I assume due to the Japanese air attacks? Might be worth noting that?

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would have thought speed for the Liberty ships should be given in knots and converted into other speeds rather than the other way round?

  Because another editor wanted everything consistently in metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which Australian docks operating company was it?

  2/1st Docks Operating Company. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• in general, the airfields section should probably be chronological in terms of when each one was started. For example, 30-Mile is mentioned (and linked) in the context of the bridge washout at Schwimmer before we even know it existed. This isn't an easy fix, I know, but maybe start by introducing all the airfields then breaking them down individually?

  Y Introduced them all at the beginning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Twelve Mile Drome was renamed Berry Drome - but we haven't heard about 12-Mile as yet, just 7, 3, 14 and 5? Related to the above point about 30.
• there is some inconsistency in compass directions, southwest, but also south east

  Y Typo. Should be "south west". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be Ward's rather than Wards?

  From a grammatical POV, yes, but that isn't how it was named. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure it's that cut and dried [4] and [5], but ok. I also saw it as Ward Drome on a Google Books search. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  Consistency was not a strong suit in SWPA due to the campaign being fought in both US and Australian English. I chose it this way because (1) it matches most of the sources and (2) it is consistent with the other articles on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Were there two different Colonel A.G. Matthews? If not, the second iteration can be changed to just Matthews, as he has already been introduced

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Where the narrative gets to the carriers, a bit more about ANGAU would be good at that point, as they essentially organised the carriers. Perhaps move the bit that starts "On 15 June 1942..." and the following para to this point

• when the drop zones are first mentioned in the context of the carriers, it is a bit of surprise, as air dropping and drop zones hadn't been properly mentioned before, it is a bit of chicken and egg problem, I know, but still...

  Y removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• caused it to weight more

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• should probably explain that 21st Tpt Sqn was a US one, ditto 22nd

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• The KNILM and RNEIAAF initialisations are unfamiliar, perhaps in full when introduced with parentheses after?

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest inserting the para that begins "On 21 May, the 21st Transport Squadron" immediately after "Australia from Java." to maintain the flow regarding the US squadrons

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• suggest a sentence fragment explaining what Kanga Force was

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More to come Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• one thing that stands out to me (it is probably more an A-Class or FA thing than GAN though) is there seems to be limited information on the logistic function of equipment repair and maintenance, both for Army and RAAF/USAAF. From what I've read, the 30th Brigade's LAD was set up at the Rouna Pass to fix vehicles that broke down on the one-way section of the vehicle track there. BTW, there is a good pic of a truck on the pass (albeit in 1943) on the AWM site (059646).
• link 3rd Field Ambulance (Australia)

  Y linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• perhaps mention that Fairley was the Army's Director of Medicine and Mackerras was an expert on malaria?

  Y Done. Note that I wrote the article on Fairley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• link Dysentery

  Already linked in the Geography section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• perhaps mention that Ford was Assistant Director of Pathology?

  Y Wrote that one too. It was the "spin off" Good Article from the Fairley article. Fairley was my first FAC. It gave me the courage to work on more controversial articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• sick men to travelbe evacuated?

  Travel is what I meant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• link Scrub typhus

  Already linked in the Geography section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• perhaps mention who Coates was

  Y Alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• suggest hyphenating the isbn for Kienzle for consistency with the rest

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Rupert checked the licensing at A-Class, so I don't propose repeating that process.

There's something weird about the way the campaign boxes on the right expand, they go off the right side of the page frame on both my monitors. Just wondering if it is just a Google Chrome thing or happens in general?

• It's not happening to me with Firefox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's me done. Great job, really comprehensive. My only outstanding point is that one about equipment repair and maintenance, I suggest you see if you can locate anything on that before FAC. Placing on hold for the last few comments to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the book I need for that is Craftsmen of the Australian Army, and its back in Canberra. It will have to wait until I return. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, as I said, more of a FAC thing than GAN. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)