User:Acdixon/Review2

Lead:
 * "It has been estimated that about 3,000 Australian military personnel and merchant seamen supported the Allied landings" Whose estimate is this? Speaks to the credibility of the estimate.
 * "northern summer of 1944" First time I've run across this language. Obviously, I know why it's being used, since summer "down under" is winter up here, but is this the standard convention (for my own information)? Is it always preferable or equivalent to "between June and August 1944" or "in mid-1944"?
 * "in order to gain experience which they could bring back to Australia" The last part of this phrase seems a little superfluous. Is it necessary, or could the sentence end after "experience"?

Background:
 * "The Australian air units came under the command of the RAF" This wording sounds like they were under some other command before coming under command of the RAF. If this is the case, when did they come under the RAF's command? If it is not, maybe just say they "were under the command of the RAF".
 * "hundreds of RAN personnel were serving with the Royal Navy" I don't think the abbreviation RAN has been spelled out previously in the article.

Pre-invasion preparations:
 * "Some of those who had planning responsibilities included Lieutenant Colonel Ronald McNicoll, who served on the Operations Staff of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, Air Commodore Frank Bladin, who was the Senior Air Staff Officer for No. 38 Group RAF, Lieutenant Commander Victor Smith who was the Flag Officer, British Assault Area's air planning officer, and Major Douglas Vincent a signals officer attached to the headquarters of the British XXX Corps." I got seriously lost in this list. I'm thinking semi-colons are needed to separate each officer-description pair; that would allow commas between names and descriptions, if needed. I got most of the pairings, but to whom does "British Assault Area's air planning officer" refer?
 * "The Australian-born Air Commodore Edgar McCloughry" You can probably drop "the".
 * Both "sorties" and "dispositions" (in this context) are unfamiliar terms for me, but may be acceptable in this kind of article. Are there more generally-understandable equivalents that would be considered acceptable?
 * "took part in 25 of the 53 such raids" I think you can drop "such" here.
 * "2TAF's fighter-bombers also attacked bridges over the river Seine from April as part of an effort to seal off the Normandy region" Does this mean they started in April and continued until some unspecified date? If so, when did the attacks end? If not, maybe consider "in April" instead of "from April". This same construct appears a couple of paragraphs later.
 * "British light bomber units took part in a further 14 raids on German batteries" To my ear, using "an additional" instead of "a further" sounds less awkward. Could be a regional variation of English thing, though.
 * "the RAF stepped up its efforts to sink German submarines" Is "stepped up" too colloquial? It appears a couple of sentences later as well, so you might want to change at least one of them regardless.
 * "Coastal Command aircraft succeeded in destroying six submarines" Why not "destroyed" instead of "succeeded in destroying"?
 * "accounted for eight of the 22 bombers" Does this jive with WP:MOSNUM? Seems like they should both be numerals in this case.
 * "36 Australians posted to eight RAF units" Again, check this against WP:MOSNUM.

Australians at D-Day:
 * "On the night of 5/6 June, and in the early hours of 6 June," Maybe "night" has special military significance, but to me, it seems redundant to use the "5/6 June" construct, then specifically mention "the early hours of 6 June".
 * "and a further 14 No. 467 Squadron bombers attacked batteries at Ouistreham" Seems like you could just drop "a further" here.
 * "dropped "Window" chaff" Is there any way to concisely clarify what this is for the non-expert?
 * "in an attempt to deceive the Germans of the Allies' true intentions" Is this necessary, given that we were just told that these were "diversionary tactics"?
 * "intruder" should be wikilinked on first use instead of in this section.
 * "took part in the "intruder" bombing raids on western Germany and the Low Countries that sought to divert German aircraft away from Normandy" This makes it sound like the Low Countries were seeking to divert German aircraft. I gather that this is not the case, but can the sentence be reworded to avoid the ambiguity?
 * Why is "submarine" linked here, but not in the lead or on first use in the body?
 * "he received his third DSC for completing this mission" Should the abbreviation "DSC" follow "Distinguished Service Cross" in parentheses on first use?
 * "Meanwhile, after going ashore on D+1, Vincent had served with the XXX Corps" It seems like something is weird with the tenses here. Also, is the designation "D+1" well understood by non-military specialists? (I assume it means the day after the invasion.)
 * "The total number of Australians killed on 6 June was 14, of whom 12 were RAAF airmen and two were members of the RAN" Check against WP:MOSNUM.

Subsequent fighting:
 * "attack on Vire" Is there/should there be an article on this battle that we can link to? Sounds like an interesting affair.
 * "claimed to have destroyed dozens of German vehicles" Is there doubt about those claims?

Aftermath:
 * "typically ever assigned to combat units" You can probably drop "ever".

Commemoration:
 * "The Australian involvement in the Battle of Normandy has also been commemorated" You can probably drop the first "the".
 * Any idea why Australia was initially excluded from the Mémorial de Caen or why it took a decade for their flag to be added?