Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Final article in the series about logistics in north west Europe. This one takes into account reviewer comments on previous articles in the series. It follows operations closely, and incorporates recent scholarship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'll take a look at this, but it will probably take several days for me to get through this all. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This was resented by the former, who considered that they favored COMZ" - a bit confused by the wording here - is this trying to say that the service chiefs favored COMZ, or that they felt like the system in place favored COMZ over them?
    I am trying to say that the service chiefs of the armies and army groups thought that ETOUSA favored COMZ (ie themselves). Re-worded in an attempt to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Continental Advance Section (CONAD) and the Delta Base Section then came directly under COMZ" - I think it would be worthwhile to gloss what exactly these organizations were and what their functions were
    Added a sentence about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henceforth, COMZ consisted of the two advance sections (ADSEC and CONAD)" - first reference to ADSEC, at least by this name, and while it's fairly obvious the purpose of this formation, the role ADSEC has to play in this (north or south or central?) is unclear
    Added a sentence about the function of ADSEC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Personnel problems, hopefully can finish in another two or three days. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check the pagination for the paragraph starting with "The ETO Chief Engineer, Major General Cecil R. Moore, held a meeting of the chief engineers of the major headquarters in October 1944"; I'm finding at least some of that information on p. 409 as well as the cited page range
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Rhine Crossing section, back later. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but it was not open until 18:50. " - this isn't really meaningful without an indication of how much delay this actually caused
    No delay, but the earlier opening of the Alexander patch Bridge made it unnecessary. Added words to this effect to make this point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you learn much from it? To me the big revelation was the role of railway transport in the final campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did find it informative - I'd always heard that it was very much a shoestring operation, which it turns it wasn't at all in this stage. Was not surprised to learn about the large numbers of rear echelon support troops; grandpa had been in the military police in in Europe during the last few months of the war and never got close to the front line. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • There is a very good range of relevant images, including maps and contemporary photographs. The inclusion of the graph from Dunham is particularly noteworthy.
  • All the images have appropriate captions, some of which include relevant wikilinks.
  • All images have appropriate public domain tags. The majority are works of a US Army soldiers or US Government employees, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. One (US Army mechanized forces cross the Rhine River on the Alexander Patch Heavy Pontoon Bridge.tif) is stated to be the work of a member of the US Navy employee, and is held at the National Archives. The copyright notices note that, as these are works of the US federal government, they are in the public domain in the United States.
  • Unfortunately some of the links in the descriptions are dead (for example in M26 pontoon ferry remagen.jpg). I do not believe this impacts the verifiable nature of the images, but am happy to take guidance.
  • None of the images have ALT text. simongraham (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA

edit
  • Just a comment here there's a sandwich between "File:2nd Infantry Division artillery fires a 25-pounder.jpg" and "File:2d Armored Division tanks cross the Roer into Juelich.png". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the pic Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's great to see an article on this topic up for an A-class review. I have the following comments:

  • "American logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany supported the American operation" - didn't the Americans also provide logistical support for the French? I'd suggest tweaking this to note that it's about logistics for the American effort.
    Yes. Added a paragraph to "Personnel problems" about this, and updated the lead accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Personnel problems' section could cover the dysfunctional arrangements for replacement personnel - especially the notorious individual replacement system and frequently sending recovered wounded soldiers back to general depots rather than their old units. There's a general consensus that this made the US Army's manpower problems worse, as the replacements lacked training and cohesion with their units and were often killed or wounded within days as a result. From memory, the situation was improved somewhat over 1945 (some divisions established holding units for replacements and posted them in groups rather than send them forward individually to units in the front line, for instance).
    I did not want to get too deep into this subject, as it could warrant an article in its own right, and goes beyond logistic support. I have added two more paragraphs covering what your points. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Organization changes' section is a bit hard to follow given that no previous mention seems to have been made of the various administrative districts. I'd suggest adding some material on them earlier.
    Added a mention of the district organization. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to include a summary of the nature of the Central Europe campaign - e.g. the US Army units generally moved quickly as German resistance collapsed, but there was hard fighting in many locations that continued until almost the end of the war.
    Added a paragraph on operations to the start of the "Central Europe campaign" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the US Army looked after the huge number of POWs it took could be covered, not least as this is somewhat controversial (largely due to the wrong-headed 'other losses' claims that the Americans behaved like the Germans did). Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support These changes look fantastic, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia uses Operation Plunder for the Rhine crossings, but my sources use it only for Montgomery's 21st Army Group crossing in the north. (eg MacDonald, pp. 297, 497) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (You find all sorts of tosh there.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reckon? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General of the Army George C. Marshall, took cognisance of the fact that the Soviet Union was doing most of the fighting, and decided that the size of the army could be reduced. The original plans for a large army were scaled back to one of 90 divisions." Both of these are undated. A reader is left to assume that it was during the period the article covers, which I doubt is what you mean.
    checkY Added some dates to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proportion devoted to the ground forces". The proportion of what?
    checkY Of soldiers in the army. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1,535,600 combat service and support units". 1. Just checking whether there should be a comma between combat and service? 2. "1,535,600 ... units"? Impressive.
    checkY No, but its seems to have gotten muddled. Changed to "On 31 December 1944, ETOUSA had 52 divisions and 1,392,100 troops in combat support and service units. The theater had an authorized strength of 1,535,600 in combat support and service units, and it was planned to increase the number of divisions in the ETO to 61. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still have Line of communication Wikilinked twice in one paragraph.
    checkY I see how that eluded the checker. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cut of ten field artillery battalions in order in return for the truck drivers."
    checkY Deleted "in order" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scaled back to one of 90 divisions ... Limiting the U.S. Army to 89 divisions"?
    checkY Made 89 for consistency; 90 were formed but the 2nd Cavalry Division was broken up and its African-American personnel used as truck drivers. All served overseas and all but the 13th Airborne Division (in Europe) and the 98th Infantry Division (in the Pacific) saw action. Among the nine divisions rushed to Europe in the wake of the Ardennes offensive (all that remained in the United States) were four originally scheduled for the Pacific, including the 71st Infantry Division, which was specially trained in jungle warfare. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cold injury". It may be worth expanding this to 'cold weather injury', to avoid confusion with cold or cold.
    checkY Cold injury is linked, but added "such as trench foot and frostbite. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instituted a new policy whereby ..." When?
    checkY In January 1945. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sixty percent of their personnel were to be given three weeks' refresher training and released into the replacement stream." 1. Do we need the "to be", which changes the tense? 2. When was this decision made and/or when did the activity happen?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/American_logistics_in_the_Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany&oldid=1172479377"