Talk:List of United States Army campaigns during World War II

Should the "Blanket Campaigns" be included or at least mentioned?

I'm not sure how the source's define them, but should the "blanket campaigns" be included (Antisubmarine, Ground Combat, & Air Combat) in addition to the "battle campaigns"? Service members could get campaign stars for them on the American, Asiatic-Pacific, and European-African-Middle East Campaign medals (but only if they didn't qualify for any "battle campaigns" in the Theater). Again, I'm not sure what the sources say. Gecko G (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this reasonable now?--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 17:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

good, I'll add the "Air Combat" one's (unless someone beats me to it) as they are included in the source you used. Of course then the question becomes what to do about the American Theater one's. From what I've read, the Army's perspective is that the standard three blanket campaign were declared for the theater, but only the anti-submarine one was actually awarded campaign credit to Army units for the American Theater/American Campaign Medal. Gecko G (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Scope of list

• The list completely omits air campaigns, in addition to the omissions above. If this is intentional, the list should be retitled. If not, they need to be included.
• If this list is about US Army campaigns, why are the African, Australian, British, Canadian and Japanese task forces included? If it omits air campaigns, why is the Aviation task force included? What is the relationship of the list to Weaponry or Maritime warfare?
• The narrative needs work. How is a Wikipedia list "official"? How did the Japanese invasions of the Philippines and East Indies "supersecede" Pearl Harbor? New Guinea is not in the Solomons. I don't think it was the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that ended the war. Speaking of which, the war only ended once, although the war in certain areas may have ended on different dates. There is no mention of operations in the CBI theater. Problems with subject and verb in the last paragraph make the final sentence say "[T]he U.S. . . . ended the war . . ." I think the Russians and others would find this a little POV. And, use of U.S. for the United States of America falls afoul of the MOS. Therefore, although I've assessed B5 as yes, but B4 is no. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

First point: Based on the title I took the article as the list of campaigns, as defined by the US Army, which the US Army partook in, and thus - aside's from the posible issue of the "blanket campaign's", which I raised above - the article is appropriately titled. If the air campaigns of the Army Air Force or the naval campaigns of the US Navy are included, the article would need to be retitled and refocused/rescoped (Which may or may not be a good thing). Likewise if it was expanded beyond the US military (would such even be possible?). Second point: your right, as it currently stands those task force's should not be included. However, I'm not sure what point you are making connecting them to the lists so I can't say if you are right or not, care to explain/expand?. Third point: several good needed copyedit's, I'll only address one- the "official" I took it to mean as defined by the US Army (that ties in with the first point). I thought that was clear, but if even someone familiar with the MilHist work has misread it, then perhaps it should be reworded to clarify the issue for a lay reader. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One additional note, concerning the CBI theater- they are included in the East Asian campaigns section. perhaps that section should be renamed? Gecko G (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The campaigns are "official" in that they are defined by the US Army. Units are awarded campaign streamers and veterans awards for participation. As such, they are of interest to the readers (but the article should make this clear). Also of course, campaigns of WWII with little or no US participation do not appear. I have added extra campaigns and adjusted the dates where they were incorrect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what you intend to say by "supersede." That the Army's focus (although not the Navy's) shifted from the Central Pacific to the Southwest Pacific? Which, of course is accurate.

The CBI campaigns are included in the list, my comment was directed at the introduction which includes Pacific, Mediterranean and European actions, but says nothing about the CBI. I have no objection to the title you have chosen for these campaigns in the list.

The task force comment is directed at this talk page. Since you agree, I'll delete them. I see it's already done. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is the campaigns that are official not the list. It's a list of official campaigns, not an official list of campaigns. I agree that Navy campaigns are rightly omitted, but if it is a list of United States Army campaigns it includes the Army Air Forces in addition to the ground forces, which makes this a list of ground campaigns. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the "supersede" discussion is directed at others, because I didn't write that nor am I sure what is meant.

The CBI theater was such a minor concern from the US perspective (not so for Britain and the commonwealth) that IMHO it doesn't need to be in the lead - though if someone wants to write & include a sentence on it I wouldn't object- though as it is the two paragraphs currently nicely match the main division between "Europe" (inculding N. Africa, Med., & nominally the Middle East) & "Pacific" (including Asia) of the American perspective (and which matchs the campaign medals issued by the US).

Not sure what you mean by "list of official campaigns, not an offical list of campaigns", are you saying the list is incomplete? I only checked by comparing the number of campaigns, not the details of them. Asides from the above discussion about the Air Combat blanket campaign, it does also include the air campaigns - there's only 2 (4-5 with the blanket's). It's not like the Korean or Vietnam wars where the air force had a bunch of campaign definitions seperate from the Army (like the Navy in all three wars). Gecko G (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I have nominated this article for DYK, as the text has been expanded fivefold. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible A-class nom?

@Gecko G: @Hawkeye7: Mind starting an A-class review for this one? If no one opposes it will be a conom between the three of us. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I've never been involved in any such thing so I look forward to learning the proccess. Go for it. Gecko G (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Started a few days ago.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Split the lead?

The lead is rather long now, should it be split- keeping the first paragraph as the actual lead and moving all the other paragraphs to a section called "overview" or "introduction" or something?

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous grammer notes

I'm not saying the following are wrong, nor to definately implement these changes, I just would like another set of eyeballs to look these over and weigh in, thank you. Gecko G (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• where it says It is the basis of campaign honors and awards for U.S. Army units and individuals, "individuals" seems odd here (the implication being "a U.S. Army individual") but I'm not sure which alternative to use: "servicemembers", or "soldiers", or something else? thoughts?
• a … regiment of the U.S. Army … participated in the reconquest of Northern burma in 1944, and two regiments in the Central Burma Campaign the following year before … should that be something along the line's of "…and two regiments partook in the Central Burma Campaign…"?
• …which caused the Japanese to unconditionally surrender on 2 Septmeber 1945, aboard the USS Missouri. Should there be a pipped link in here to either V-J Day, Potsdam Declaration, or Surrender of Japan? In either case, is the USS Missouri bit extraneous?
• This one has been bothering me: Hopes of a quick capture of Rome were frustrated by the Germans, who conducted a fighting withdrawal to the Gustav Line, and the landing at Anzio and fighting at Monte Cassino in January 1944 failed to break the deadlock. Rome was finally captured on 4 June after the Gustav Line was breached by the Allies in May 1944, and the Germans retreated to the Gothic Line in Northern Italy, where … several points-
  • a) should it be "Hopes for a quick capture…" to me "of" in this usage implies there was some indication that at the time it was thought or looked like it would of been a quick capture- but given the heavy cost of fighting in southern Italy did anyone actually think that at the time?
  • b) Is it "Landing at Anzio" or "Landings at Anzio" (singular or plural)? I've often heard it called using the singular when its the other way round- "the Anzio Landing", but only rarely so when its L@A, when it usually in the plural.
  • c) instead of "…withdrawal to the Gustav Line, and the _1_ and _2_ in _date_ failed to break the deadlock" should it be something like "… withdrawal to the Gustav Line, which the _1_ and _2_ in _date_ failed to break" (and -> which, deleting "the deadlock")
  • d)should the 1st two parts of the second sentce be swapped around? ie "The Gustav Line was breached by the Allies in May 1944 and Rome was finally captured on 4 June, and the Germans retreated to the Gothic Line in Northern Italy, where …" or better yet, something like "The Gustav line was breached by the Allies in May 1944 leading to Rome's capture on 4 June. The Germans retreated to the Gothic Line in Northern Italy, where …" (A leading to B, and spliting the rest off into a seperate sentence, since it is a rather long sentence.). If it's not to be split into 2 sentences then the "and" should be replaced with something like "prompting" or "forcing" or "causing" or something in that vein.
• In the last paragraph "After much fighting…" doesn't sound right to my ears. Unless that's a AmE/BrE (or such) difference I'd suggest changing it to "After heavy fighting…" or something similar (but not "costly" since that is used later in the paragraph- where it is more appropriate I think)
• The Ardennes offensive is pipe-linked to the Battle of the Bulge. Since "the Battle of the Bulge" (common name) is far more known than "the German Ardennes offensive" (proper name), I'm worried that in the future some drive-by editor will come across this, and thinking that "the important and noteworthy Battle of the Bulge is ommitted from this otherwise complete overview", misteakenly add it a second time. Should it perhaps be "…German Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge), which …"?
• Operations continued until the war in Europe ended on 8 May 1945 with the signing of unconditional surrender the previous day like the 3rd point above, should there be a pipped link to one of the following: V-E Day, German Instrument of Surrender, or End of World War II in Europe?

I've attempted to fix these issues as best I could.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

overall good, except for one:

…fighting withdrawal to the Gustav Line, the [_1_] and [_2_] in January 1944 failed to break the line. The Gustav Line was broke in May 1944,… The outright deletion of the "and" [between "Line," and "the"] makes it read even more like two distinct sentences jammed together (which it might actually deserve to be, though I'm not convinced of that). If deleting the "and" instead of changing it to a "which", then does it needs to stay as "failed to break the deadlock" at the end of that sentence? Thinking about it, I'm not sure now which I prefer, my 1st suggestion:

a) "…fighting withdrawal to the Gustav Line, which the ___ failed to break." or this new suggestion:

b) "…fighting withdrawal to the Gustav line, the ___ failed to break the deadlock.", or compared to what you currently have:

c) "…fighting withdrawal to the Gustav line, the ___ failed to break the line.", though all seem superior to the original:

d) "…fighting withdrawal to the Gustav Line, and the ___ failed to break the deadlock.–kept--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

plus now the second sentence is grammatically wrong, but that in an easy fix: either a) delete "was" or b) change it from "broke" to "broken". I'd say either choice is equally valid, thus I'm not sure which to go with — hence why I don't just change it myself. Done

I hope no one thinks I'm being pedantic or nitpicking, I fully acknowledge that these are all extremely minor points, I just figure it's best to address them now, especially if this article is being assessed for some of the higher quality ratings.

Any thoughts on the Landing/Landings point?

I prefer "landing" since there was only one landing at Anzio.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

FLC nomination?

@Hawkeye7:@Gecko G: Would you mind if I start a FLC on this? Co-nom again.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

go for it. Gecko G (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

TFL Blurb

• @Hawkeye7 and Gecko G: I've drafted a blurb for this article for TFL. If you two could improve it's fine by me. Here's what it reads:

The United States Army designated certain "campaigns" of World War II. These campaigns were the basis of campaign streamers awarded to units and campaign medals awarded to servicemen. In all, the Army designated forty-four campaigns as such. There were twenty-four campaigns in the Asiatic–Pacific Theater, nineteen in the European–African–Middle Eastern Theater, and one in the American Theater. In addition, there were also three "blanket campaigns": air combat, ground combat, and anti-submarine combat. The blanket campaigns were designated in all theaters except the American Theater, where only one was designated, anti-submarine warfare.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll be sending soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around to help, it's peak season at work so I'm working crazy amounts of overtime right now. I'm concerned about the bits about awarding Campaign ribbons. Units are awarded campaign streamers and soldiers are awarded campaign medals. There is no such thing as a "campaign ribbon". Gecko G (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have re-worded the blurb above to reflect this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The ribbon part is good now, but I just noticed something else: I've deleted the last sentence because as it was the blurb implied that being in combat was the [only] way to get a campaign medal. While the details vary from campaign medal to campaign medal, generally the requirements are:

(A.) Perform some specified type, or more typically length, of service (B.) within a specified geographic area (C.) within a specified time frame.

There's usually specific wording in the legislation where active combat waives the first requirement (usually built-in to assure that those wounded or killed before they can complete "A" are still honored) but combat service is not required. So I just deleted the whole last sentence: it was getting off topic anyhow and is a bit redundant with the second sentence already stating that these campaigns were the basis of ... campaign medals awarded to servicemembers. Gecko G (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States Army campaigns during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518093115/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15298&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0 to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15298&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518092909/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15299&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0 to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15299&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021841/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15297&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0 to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15297&CategoryId=4&grp=4&menu=Decorations%20and%20Medals&ps=24&p=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)