Talk:Operation Deep Water

Article launch
Article duly launched.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Strategic overview
On Ed17 talk page, Graeme Leggett noted that: "I think some common approach is needed on NATO exercise articles. On the one hand, some degree of background is necessary for each article to be put into context: eg with respect to current doctrine or the results of the previous similar exercise, or a change in the political situation. On the other hand, I think largely political rather than operational viewpoints are too distant from the point and overlong quotes are not useful - deprecated even per MoS etc. Is this something worth flagging up at the MilHist talkpages?" Given the fact that the Eisenhower administration developed its so-called "New Look" approach in defense strategy which emphasized massive retaliation, and this policy represents an evolution from the containment policy of the Truman administration. Also, for the U.S. Navy, historian Samuel P. Huntington set forth a naval strategy oriented to naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. This strategic background is appropriate and essential to understanding the historical context for NATO exercises in 1957. This assertion that this is covered by other articles is not appropriate approach and does a disservice to our user audience.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Command structure
The suggestion that this background information is duplicative and unnecessary is an absolute non sequitur. Please note that Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe did not exist at the time of such earlier NATO Southern Region military exercise as 1952's Exercise Longstep and 1952's Exercise Grand Slam. In fact, Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe (STRIKFORSOUTH) was created after the creation of Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) under Lord Mountbatten, and STRIKFORSOUTH was created to maintain American control over U.S. nuclear weapons on U.S. Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier in accordance with the McMahon Act. Therefore, this background information on the command structure for Operation Deep Water is approbriate. Consequently, the assertion that this information is covered by other articles is incorrect and also does a disservice to our user audience to exclude this information for this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is an existing article that gives the command structure, it is normally better to link to that after giving the briefest background rather than fuller explanation that would dominate the article (WP:UNDUE). If the restructuring of a command was directly relevant to the article content and the events in the article - eg a brigade being newly reorganised then put straight into battle and suffering calamitous losses, then I cna see a point for more info, and perhaps there would also be some follow-up in an "aftermath" section (to continue the analogy, the replacement of commanders or a further restructuring)
 * At the moment the article is still sketchy - jumping almost immediately into the air assault and skipping the first couple of days. No mention of how opposing forces were simulated, the necessary cooperation of Turkey, whether any other NATO elements were present - and so large sections on political background and force comoistion seem unecessary as "undue" detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Graeme. The two sections are unnecessary duplications of detail at other articles, and the article misses out things like opposing forces, WHNS from Turkey, any other forces that the US, etc. The two re-re-re-inserted sections can be reduced to single sentences linking NATO and SHAPE, with the politics, and AFSOUTH, with the command structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All the material mentioned above is covered at AFSOUTH with some at United States Sixth Fleet - multiple duplications. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentleman, I moved the STRIKFORSOUTH information in a greatly truncated form into the Operational summary section of the article, leaving the Strategic overview information in the Background section. I do this in the spirit of collaboration and amenity.  Regarding the article's sketchiness, as its original creator, I did my due diligence on its research, but if anyone can locate additional information on Operation Deep Water, then by all means bring it forward for us to examine.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

coverage lacking
I reassessed against the checklist because of what i see as lack of coverage

We then jump forward four days to the amphbious assault. Was the assault simulated opposed?
 * Background - no mention of the Turkish angle.
 * We have a single sentence describing a simulated nuclear attack without mentioning key elements - by who, against who, the simulated outcome
 * And finally the outcome is a single quote by a participant. No indication if lessons were learned, political situation changed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)