Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Normandy campaign/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [1].

American logistics in the Normandy campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that neither logistics nor the Second World War are popular subjects, but it is a subject close to my heart. I believe that events of 1944 are not comprehensible without an understanding of logistics, and that this article will therefore provide a valuable resource for readers. The article is a new one, created in January 2020, and has since passed through DYK, GA and A-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Per my review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I had a look at this one's sibling article at GAN and ACR, so I'll take a look at this one for FAC. Review might be claimed for 5 points the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Background
Bolero
  • "Clearing it involved running 100 special freight trains with up to 20,000 loaded cars each week" - I'd recommend rephrasing this. It can be read to give the impression that each train had up to 20,000 loaded cars, which is rather outlandish.
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Organization
  • "With the formation of SHAEF and FUSAG, ETOUSA lost most of its roles, and was consolidated with SOS" - When did this occur? ETOUSA is still referred to as doing things as late as 7 February
    Added that this was in January 1944. By "consolidated", is mean that there was only one ETOUSA-SOS staff, which performed both functions, so all the staff members were "double hatted". Fine in the UK, but later when the Twelfth Army Group quartermaster (ordnance officer. petroleum officer, etc) dealt with his opposite number in COMZ, he was also dealing with his ETOUSA superior. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shipping
  • " Navy and Transportation Corps officers went from one ship to the next searching for items that were desperately required. the First Army would then declare what it wanted discharged" - Either combine these two sentences or capitalize "the"
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never really gloss or link LSTs or LCTs
    Linked.
Ordnance
  • " On 15 June the First Army imposed restrictions on the number of rounds per gun per day that could be fired." - I'm assuming this is the big artillery guns right? Might want to clarify this, as not everyone's gonna know the distinction between the military use of guns as the big caliber artillery and the common use of guns as in just about any firearm.
    Sure. Reworded. Note that small arms are never referred to the article as "guns". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ammunition was being unloaded at a rate of 500 long tons (510 t) per day, which was insufficient" - What was the sufficient amount?
    Hard to say, as this is just gross ammunition unloaded in tons, and shortages were in rounds by type. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.2 units of fire per day. the First Army once again imposed" - Start the sentence off with a capital
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Substinence
  • "The lemon powder in the C and K rations was those rations' primary sources of vitamin C, but was particularly unpopular with the troops, who frequently discarded it, or used it for tasks like scrubbing floors" - Did this lead to any scurvy?
    Yes. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POL

That's all from me, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I realise that most people consider logistics drier than a dead dingo's donger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm one of the few who find logistics at least somewhat interesting. Hog Farm Bacon 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

[edit]

Are you kidding? Maybe there's something wrong in my brain, but the only interesting part of military history to me is logistics related!

For the thesis I requested declassification of hundred of files on logistics (in Australia you have to request each file individually, although you can ask for dozens on the same form) so I know that I was the first person to view them in half a century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not only a navbox in the lead, but a hidden navbox in the lead. Someone should convert that to a horizontal navbox so it can be at the bottom of the article, or at least get it out of the lead, since it shouldn't be hidden. When you open the navbox, you also end up with a MOS:SANDWICH in the first section.
    It is in the right place as a header navbox per WP:ORDER. I could convert it into a horizontal navbox easily enough, but most of the WWII navboxes are vertical. I will ping @WP:MILHIST coordinators: and see if anyone knows the reason why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK it is correct, it is common to collapse, and formatted IAW many other Milhist articles with navboxes up the top. I don't get any sandwiching on either of my screens (except of course the TOC, which isn't an issue IMHO. One of my screens is a bit smaller, but grant that it might sandwich on significantly smaller screens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these navboxes started out as simple campaignboxes for the operations/campaigns involved; the format hasn't changed as non-battle articles have been added. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It causes some sandwiching on my screen, by knocking the building picture down, and then sandwiching text between the it and the other section photo, but it seems a little semantic, especially since most users likely aren't going to be reading the article with the navbox fully expanded. Hog Farm Bacon 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D" is short for D-day here? That was lost on me as a non-military-type, and I had to stop to figure it out ... "which was expected to be reached by D plus 90," ... since this shortcut is used throughout the article, can it be treated like an acronym and defined on first occurrence ... eg ... D plus 90 (90 days after the planned D-day), and that covers all subsequent instances?
    Removed from the lead, put an explanation into the article. The actual date of D-Day was fixed in advance, and was a secret beforehand. In the event it was postponed one day at the last minute. Schedules were drawn up specifying what was to be done with reference to D and H, often abbreviated as H-35, D+9 etc, similar to the countdowns used by rocket scientists. Throughout the period covered by this article, everything was specified in terms of D plus something, but I have translated them into actual dates when not talking about the planning process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "before advancing further" redundant to "one month pause"? Perhaps something more concrete is intended in the "before advancing further" ... as in, before continuing the advance on to (some planned destination)? I'm having trouble with how you are using proscribed vs. prescribed ... isn't it the STOP advancing that is proscribed?
    "Prescribed" is correct it; it was a recommendation. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout, there are a lot of long sentences with multiple clauses; reader interest can be held by varying the length of sentences. (Just a suggestion, where to make splits at your discretion, but try to limit the number of clauses attached to sentences.) Here's a sample:
    • Ideally, a DUKW reaching the shore would be met by a mobile crane that could transfer the load to a waiting truck that could take it to the dump, but there were shortages of both trucks and cranes in the early weeks, and DUKWs had to take cargo to the dumps themselves. Insufficient personnel at the dumps for unloading further slowed turnaround, as did the practice of crews whose priority was getting the ship unloaded, of unloading more than one category of supply at once, resulting in a trip to more than one dump.
      Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competent writing, worthy candidate no other MOS issues spotted, I will keep reading over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

An article I know something about! Placeholder. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Services of Supply (SOS) was formed in May 1942 under the command of Major General John C. H. Lee to provide logistical support." This seems to beg a 'to' on the end.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From February 1944 on, SOS was increasingly ..." Should it not be the SOS?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • It seems odd that the lead specifies a start date, but does not similarly specify when the scope of the article ends. When do you consider the Normandy campaign to have ended?
    Hadn't thought of that. As far as the US Army is concerned, the Normandy campaign ended on 24 July. The following day was the start of Operation Cobra. That's a convenient date for an article on logistics, because we then move into the breakout and pursuit, and the logistical situation changes completely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cross-channel attack" 'Channel'.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somervell ordered all construction work in the UK to cease". It would be helpful to indicate in a general sense what this construction work was, or was in aid of.
    It tells you in the next sentence: works completed included 6,489,335 square feet (602,879 m2) of covered storage, 37,915,645 square feet (3,522,479 m2) of open storage and hard standings, and facilities for storage of 169,320 long tons (172,040 t) of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hard standing.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Effecting this depended on the ability of the ports in the UK handling up to 150 ships per month." This may flow better as 'Effecting this depended on the ability of the ports in the UK to handle up to 150 ships per month' or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite being sent by air mail somehow still frequently failed to arrive in advance of the cargo" Optional: Delete either "somehow" or "still".
    Deleted "somehow". Nowadays manifests are sent electronically via email. Still don't arrive in time though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both the lead and the article you mention the capture of the Brittainy ports and Quiberon Bay. A reader may reasonably be expected to infer the connection between capturing a port and a logistical operation, but a bay? And "and even with Quiberon Bay in operation" is liable to baffle even students of the war.
    Add a bit. I moved the discussion of Operation Chastity into the other article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above looks good.

  • "The Omaha and Utah beaches remained under sporadic artillery and sniper fire for several days". Given that Utah was shelled by the four 205 mm guns at St-Marcouf for more than a week until they ran out of ammunition, I am not sure about "sporadic" or "several days". This is an observation, not an actionable comment.
    Wasn't this position captured on 12 June? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So a different source confirms. I'm not sure where the first source gets their "more than a week" from. I believe they surrendered after emptying their magazine at Utah. And USS Corry of course. Any hoo, not something I would want to push, but "sporadic artillery and sniper fire for several days" seems fair enough for Omaha, but arguably understates the situation on Utah. Your call.
    Deleted "sporadic". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was resolved only when ships started being loaded with one category of supply only." Is it known approximately when this occurred?
Sorry, my usual bad habit of framing comments as rhetorical questions. Thanks.
  • "A major problem was ships arriving without manifests, which were supposed to have been shipped in advance by air or naval courier, but aircraft could not get through and the courier launches were often delayed." Optional: Consider rephrasing as two sentences.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The First Army staff would then declare what they wanted discharged." I (honestly) don't understand what this is trying t communicate.
    That they would state what supplies they wanted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most controversial was ordering the "drying out" Landing Ships, Tank (LSTs)." I assume that there is a word missing from this.
    Added "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drying out commenced tentatively on 8 June and soon became a standard practice." I know what you mean, but am not sure that "tentatively" is the best word. It implies that the LSTs were being tentative. (Which as inanimate objects they couldn't be.) Perhaps 'on a limited scale' or similar?
    I think "tentatively" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 days of good weather could be expected in June, but there were normally only two quiet spells of good weather for four days running between May and September" This doesn't work. If there are only 5 days of not-good weather in June, then one can't fit them in to make only "two quiet spells of good weather" in June alone.
    "Expected" means "on average". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the probability that a day in June is good then the probability
    Unfinished?
Gah! I should have made a note. Sod's law, it was in the fifth I went back to. Wilmot (1952) p. 321.
Fair enough.
  • "and by 17 June all 24 of the bombardons, 32 of the 51 phoenixes were in place" There seems to be an 'and' missing.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Naval construction personnel)" You sure about that uppercase N?
    Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the worst June storm in forty years, it was not a severe one; wind gusts reached 25 to 32 knots (46 to 59 km/h), and therefore never reached gale force." Do your sources absolutely nail that down? I have numerous RSs which contradict it, either in general - "one of the worst June gales in 80 years" - or specifically - "HMS Despatch logged winds at force 8 - almost forty miles per hour - and seas exceeding five feet. ... Tuesday was fiercer, with seas over nine feet" etc, etc.
    Ruppenthal says so explicitly. Morison (the source for forty years) produces the report of the Engineer Special Brigade's 21st Weather Squadron, which shows wind velocities of up to 27 knots, and seas of up to 8½ feet. That's Force 6, not Force 8 (Gale force) on the Beaufort scale. I double-checked with the British figures for Mulberry B from Hartcup. same story. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated a bit further and a couple of other recent sources reckon that this has been a little over egged too. All of the figures seem to be in very broad agreement, and, frankly, yours seem more reliable, so sorry to have bothered you.
  • "the artificial port concept from the very beginning". Delete "very".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British still were still determined" Delete a "still".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing eleven of the intended twelve divisions"; "all eleven divisions planned for had arrived"?
    Ooops. I have corrected this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it took bids for air transport". Really? On a commercial basis?
    On a priority basis. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although ammunition expenditure did not exceed expected usage". Again I have numerous sources suggesting that expenditure of some types of ammunition was higher than expected. 105 mm shells springs to mind - with batteries firing off well over 500 rounds a day against an anticipated rate of 125 rounds. (I note your UoF of 133 for 105s. I also note that you do not suggest that a UoF was planned as a daily allocation, which I assume is deliberate.)
    Ruppenthal says:"Expenditure had actually been below estimates". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans also made a special effort to eliminate men carrying the Browning automatic rifle (BAR), as the BAR represented most of an infantry squad's firepower." I have not come across this proposition elsewhere; it seems to me infeasible in practice; Ruppenthal does not fully support it - "were attributed mainly to"; targeting the BAR carrier would not normally effect the BAR, which would be happily picked up by another squad member as an increase in their personal firepower. I would suggest deleting this.
    I'm keeping it in, by re-worded slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruppenthal says: "attributed mainly to the special effort which enemy infantrymen consistently made to eliminate the BAR man in the American squad". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Who do you assume is doing the attributing? (I note that Ruppenthal avoids saying that this was the case, only that it was attributed.)
    Ruppenthal attributes to a report by Medaris, the ordnance officer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although ammunition expenditure did not exceed expected usage" This is not supported by my reading of the source. "Most of the trouble over ammunition supply arose not so much from excessive or unexpected expenditures as from difficulties in delivery of adequate tonnages to the Continent." does nor preclude ammunition expenditure exceeding expected usage. Indeed, it would seem to suggest that this was the case.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to bed. Some quick responses above. I'll check through properly in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but there were normally only two quiet spells of good weather" Optional: "quiet spells" and "good weather" seems to be repeating the same thing. Maybe 'but there were normally only two spells of good weather'?

An excellent job of explanatory writing. The best treatment of this topic I have read. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Sorry to see this hasn't received much attention. While interest in WWII may have gone off the boil in the wake of the centenary of WWWI, I think the Normandy landings are fascinating.

  • The first thing that jumps out at me is the length, nearly 9,100 words. Have you considered splitting anything off into daughter articles? I suspect the length is intimidating to readers and potential reviewers, which may be why this FAC has been a little quiet.
    The article has already been split into two parts: American logistics in the Normandy campaign and American logistics in the Northern France campaign. I think the problem is that logistics is not a popular subject. Being about the Second World War doesn't help either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second thing is that a lead of three medium-sized paragraphs is short for a big article.
    Do you have suggestions of other things that it should mention? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each branch head in Somervell's headquarters was asked to nominate its best two men Do you mean "his" or "their" rather than "its"? The subject of the sentence is the branch heads.
    Hmmm. Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of whom was selected by Somervell and Lee for Lee's SOS headquarters Suggest trimming to "one of whom was selected for SOS headquarters". No need to repeat names in such quick succession.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was divided into base commands corresponding to the British Army's territorial commands How much of the rest of this paragraph is essential to the reader's understanding of logistics in Normandy? There's a lot of names and places and details, but most of those names never appear again (Collins appears once more, 14 paragraphs later).
    Due to the aforementioned split. Removed the references to the British Army's commands. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per cent" or "percent"? Be consistent.
    It should be "percent" (American). I cannot find any place where "per cent" is used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main points of entry for US cargo were the Clyde and Mersey River ports, and those of the Bristol Channel; First, is it really surprising that ships from the US arrived at west coast ports (also, btw, you've essentially listed all the deep-water ports on the English/Scottish west coast); even without the threat of German submarines I'd be surprised if they sailed all the way round to the east coast ports. Second, it gets a bit repetitive when you start listing the ports a few sentences later (The Clyde ports of Glasgow, Greenock and Gourock, The Bristol Channel ports of Swansea, Cardiff, Newport and Avonmouth, and the Mersey ports of Liverpool, Garston, Manchester and Birkenhead). We could possibly even dispense with the names of the ports.
    Before the war, most of cargo traffic went through the east coast ports. This is still the case today. My guess is that the cheapest way to move cargo from A to B in the UK is by water. In the US, it costs 2c per ton-mile to ship by barge, 4c per ton-mile by rail, 17c per ton-mile by road and a dollar something per ton-mile by air. (Removed the names of the ports.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade unions in the United Kingdom I'd say that's an unnecessary link, and "in the UK" can reasonably be inferred.
    Redirected. I wasn't sure American readers were familiar with the term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with limited head room and tunnel clearances the railway enthusiast in me is itching for a link to loading gauge, though I wonder if the wheel arrangement of the locos is really relevant?
    Oooh. Great article. Scary picture at the top. Omitted link to 2-8-0. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1943 they arrived at a rate of fifty per month →"were arriving"?
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for dup links.
    Found one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Overlord is first linked under "organization" but is mentioned several times above.
    Removed the earlier reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COSSAC was absorbed into his new headquarters, known as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF). Eisenhower also took over ETOUSA, but tended to rely on his SHAEF staff.[38] With the formation of SHAEF and FUSAG, ETOUSA lost most of its roles, and was consolidated with SOS That's a lot of acronyms, which I know is sometimes unavoidable in a military article, but is there anything we can do to make it more readable?
    I think SHAEF is a fairly well-known acronym. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed, but you have seven uses of (big) acronyms there in three sentences; is there any way we could cull at least a couple because that's a mouthful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the wording to try to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The XVIII District, under the command of Colonel Paschal N. Strong, was responsible for mounting Force O, the assault force for Omaha Beach Can we cut out the detail in the middle and just go for "The XVIII District was responsible for mounting the assault force for Omaha Beach". I get that the military historian in you wants the unit names and the commanders, but it can be overwhelming for a more casual reader.
    Sure. Cut back as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as the "Build-up" section, which is all I have time for now, but I'll be back to finish off in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Sorry, that's only a few paragraphs! I'll be back, but it might be piecemeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Any contribution is valuable. I remember being at 50th anniversary celebrations for V-E Day at Hyde Park in London in 1995. But that was 25 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I fully expect to support. This is excellent work and fills an important gap. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been quiet; crazy week at work. Just to confirm, I absolutely support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Brigade Piron

[edit]

This article is a really impressive piece of work. I wonder though whether it would be worth including a mention of the extent to which American logistics depended on African American personnel considered racially unfit for front-line service. The Red Ball Express, mentioned in passing, is one example of this and it's frequently mentioned in the academic literature as a result of its historical importance in other contexts. It wouldn't need much - just a sentence or two. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence or too. There's more about this in the sequel article, American logistics in the Northern France campaign, which covers the Red Ball Express. African Americans did serve in front line units, including divisions in Italy and the Pacific, but in the period in ETO covered by the article, the only African American combat units were three field artillery battalions, the 333rd, 578th and 969th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 November 2020 (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/American_logistics_in_the_Normandy_campaign/archive1&oldid=991613045"