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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Concluding article in the series on British logistics in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945, taking the story down to the conclusion of the war in Europe. (Its American counterpart is still in the works.) For some reason the campaigns of 1945 has not been covered in the literature or the Wikipedia nearly as well as those of 1944. Once again though, I have uncovered some striking images and maps and high quality sources. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D
This is a fascinating topic for an article, and is in great shape. I agree that there's an odd neglect of the western Allied invasion of Germany in the literature - it was one of the most successful, and most important, campaigns of the war but is seemingly of little interest to historians. I have the following comments: Support My comments above are now addressed. The other comments are for consideration ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Either the first sentence of the lead or the article is too narrow, given that logistics for the RAF units involved in the campaign were also significant.
 * ✅ Added a few words. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The background section should be broadened to note that the 21st Army Group was a multinational formation - the First Canadian Army should be noted, along with the presence of other smaller national contingents, though I think that most of them were used as part of the sieges in France in this period. As the article notes, all were dependent on British logistical support.
 * ✅ Already mentioned, but I've expanded it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The background section should also note the logistical story for the 21st AG up to this point in the war - e.g. that it enjoyed good logistical support from the invasion of Normandy (which was needed and formed an explicit part of British Army doctrine which emphasised firepower and mobility to limit casualties), and various problems that affected it over the autumn and winter were largely ironed out.
 * ✅ Added a couple of paragraphs covering this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The 'Organisation' section could note the contribution made by civilian workers in Belgium and France
 * ✅ Added a bit about this too. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The 'Operation Veritable' section is quite long, and would benefit from being split into subsections
 * ✅ Added a couple of subheadings. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto the 'Operation Plunder' section
 * ✅ Ditto. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest explaining what's meant by 'grounding' in the context in which it is used
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "British PWX were flown directly to the UK" - this seems to have been the case for all liberated Commonwealth POWs (see Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom)
 * ✅ Yes. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest weaving in a link to Surrendered Enemy Personnel somewhere in the material on German prisoners. The topic is somewhat controversial due to allegations the prisoners were mistreated after the war (largely by the French and Americans - the British seem to have treated their POWs relatively well).
 * During the war. Apparently 2.6 per cent of German prisoners held by the French died, compared with 0.1 per cent by the Americans, and 0.03 per cent by the British (and 35.8 per cent of those held by the Soviet Union). The whole point about Surrendered Enemy Personnel was that (contrary to what our article says) they were not POWs and were not treated as such. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The second last para of the 'Beyond the Rhine' section notes this, and I'd suggest linking somewhere in here. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While the post-war period is out of scope, it might be worth noting briefly the huge logistical problems the 21st Army Group faced as it transitioned to becoming an army of occupation - the German economy and transport system was destroyed and the population was facing mass starvation. One of the reasons rationing became even more strict in the UK after the war was the need to feed Germans in the British occupation zone. The occupation army also continued to receive a high standard of logistical support after the war.
 * It is not just a matter of it being outside article scope; it is also outside the scope of my sources. I will have to use different ones to write a paragraph at the end. Hawkeye7
 * The relevant volume of the British official history series has some good material on this, and is online at Archive.org . As I said, it's somewhat out of scope. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. I have a copy on the shelf here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

 * "Although it contained personnel nations". Is there a typo here?
 * Looks like some text was left out. Changed to "personnel from many nations". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "This required major operations". If these were largely military, as opposed to, say, mine clearing, construction, rubble and boobytrap clearing etc, then perhaps 'required major military operations'?
 * I don't use words like "operations" casually. Re-worded slightly, and piped to operational level of war. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several duplinks.
 * Removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "along with two DUKW companies that were converted to using 3-ton trucks." I don't understand what is meant here.
 * Changed to "re-equipped with" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What are "railtails"?
 * The opposite of a railhead. I thought the reader would easily figure this out, but it is uncommon, so replaced with a different wording.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Montgomery sought to defeat Germany". Seems a little grandiose. With just the 21st Army Group?
 * Okay, the Russians did most of the heavy lifting. Re-worked the section. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "In turn this demanded a high degree of organisation and professionalism required to utilise the available machines and firepower to best effect". This doesn't quite work grammatically. Consider removing "required".
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A high class article. Just the minor nit picks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Reserving a spot. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  18:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Still intending? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Will review later tonight. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  01:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I recommend reducing the first sentence to a facsimile of those of related articles (e.g. British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign).
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By 1945 the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient. This is vague and somewhat redundant. I suggest the addition of just a little bit of context, especially since "By 1945" would suggest that this sentence is referring to the British experience of logistics throughout the war rather than the specific period of January to May 1945.
 * ✅ Changed to "By this time". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The offensive was supported by 600 field and 300 medium guns. Over 2.5 million rounds of 25-pounder ammunition were made available. Do the field and medium guns both shoot 25-pound shells?
 * Only the 25-pounders. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an answer I as an individual unfamiliar with British artillery do not understand. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  11:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The 25-pounder was the standard British field artillery piece in World War II and Korea. There are lots of them lying about in Australia. Howitzer in the courtyard of Athens War Museum on February 3, 2021.jpg ]] Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Petrol, oil and lubricants (POL) was [...] I wonder if this shouldn't be "were".
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] from the UK [...] While there's no doubt at all that just about anyone who will read this article will know that "UK" here means "United Kingdom", and it's obvious from context anyway, I'll still highlight that this is the first time the acronym occurs in the article and without explanation.
 * MOS:ACRO: For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not know the RAF flew jet fighters during the War! And that they ran on kerosene fascinates me. Yesterday's lamp becometh tomorrow's jet.
 * So much has been written about the German jets I think the Gloster Meteor may have been forgotten. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Background
 * When did Montgomery assume command of the 21st Army Group? Before Overlord?
 * Yes. In December 1943. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Canadian historian, Charles Stacey noted that: Is this comma here necessary?
 * ✅ Damn. Cannot say that in British English. re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] when the American Operation Cobra broke through the German defences. Where?
 * ✅ added "west of Saint-Lô. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Petrol was brought in tankers and over the Operation Pluto pipeline. Is this petrol distinct from our old friend POL?
 * Yes. POL is all fuels. "Petrol" is the British word for motor spirit. It was originally a brand name, but long ago became the regular word. Americans call it "gasoline", which was also once a brand name. The main types of POL in use in the period were petrol (MT-80), aviation spirit (MT-100), kerosene (JP-1), distillate (diesel) and fuel oil (bunker fuel). Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] for which [Montgomery's] Allied forces were particularly suited; [...] As opposed to his Axis forces?
 * ✅ I see the ambiguity here. Dropped "Allied". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Operation Goldflake
 * The Combined Chiefs further decided to reinforce Eisenhower's armies in North West Europe at the expense of those in the Mediterranean. When/where was this decided?
 * ✅ At the Malta Conference. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is ration strength? Google has an answer, but I think the article should, too.
 * ✅ The article does tell you. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At the rail stop there were messes and a kitchen that ran 24 hours a day. During the two-hour rail halt, the troops were served a hot meal and provided with sandwiches for the next one. For the next day or the next rail stop?
 * ✅ For the next meal. Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At the start of January 1945, British bulk storage facilities [...] Where?
 * ✅ In NW Europe. Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] but the American position was not so good. Unencyclopedic and vague.
 * ✅ Tweaked working. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] 21st Army Group's REME units [...] This acronym is explained later but should be explained here.
 * ✅ Moved. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Operation Veritable
 * [...] of which around 227,000 tonnes (223,000 long tons) was for Operation Veritable. Should be "were for" here.
 * "was" is correct here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] the supplies being to sustain the divisions in operations when the road network became congested with operational traffic. Huh?
 * ✅ Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] and the divisions were issued with Arctic clothing and equipment that had been stockpiled for operations in Norway. ...from all the way back in 1940?
 * ✅ Added a link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The 5 miles (8.0 km) of the Nijmegen-Cleve road [...] Suggest use of |adj=on here for "The 5-mile-long Nijmegen-Cleve road..."
 * ✅ Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Operation Plunder
 * [...] while the attached II Canadian Corps continued to draw its from the First Canadian Army's No. 13 Army Roadhead at Nijmegen. [...] while the US 17th Airborne Division drew its from the US Ninth Army. Recommend "its supplies" as in the previous relevant clauses.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional supplies of fuel were loaded on DUKWs, which ferried fuel across the river until bridges were opened. This can be condensed with no loss in quality.
 * ✅ Condensed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] Forêt de Soignes [...] Suggest use of English name.
 * ✅ Switched to English name. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass
Will conduct one before the end of the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Rhineland Campaign - 6-10 March 1945.jpg - source link is dead
 * ✅ Updated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Advance from the Rhine to the Baltic.jpg - creation date is wrong
 * ✅ Must be when I uploaded it. Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Operation Goldflake.jpg - with the current tag, you would need to include a tag for why it's PD in the US. This is presumably Canada Crown Copyright, so if that's the case switching to the crown copyright tag would work.
 * ✅ Yes. Canadian Crown copyright. Switched tags as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No concerns with the other images. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review

 * Spotchecks not done
 * Sources are high-quality RS
 * Notes and references are consistently formatted.
 * Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)