Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics

Article promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

History of military logistics
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is sadly deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, Military logistics, which I am still working on, and rewriting and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

If you look at a selection of the top level articles in the scope of our project you'll find that little work has been done on them. There are good reasons for this, the major one being that they are very hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars.

I am therefore appealing to the project for a bit of help here, for people to look over the sections in areas where they have particular expertise. Specific issues for consideration are the level of detail, what could be omitted and what else should be mentioned, especially important omissions. Opinions are also sought on the layout of the references, whether they sghould be by period or all together, and the Further reading section. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahh, the final boss. The white whale. The city on the hill. The part in the anime where the (first) OP starts playing. I will DEFINITELY look this over. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  22:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Schierbecker

 * Can you say anything about the changing tooth-to-tail ratio of militaries of the world? This could be represented as a bar chart. How did logistics work in the New World? Did the lack of domesticable working animals in the western hemisphere contribute to the fall of the Aztecs and others? Additionally how did Europeans surmount the distance from home problem in the new world. How did logistics work in the new world prior to Columbus? Hunter gatherers don't keep surpluses of food, but how about weapons? Obsidian spear tips have been found in Ohio. There are no volcanos in Ohio. How did it get there? You kind of touched on this, but I would also like to know more about the evolution of push vs pull logistics. Did quicker forms of communication contribute to more pull and just-in-time logistics? More information about the trend of globalized economic warfare (i.e. when did nations start cooperating to refuse passage to enemies of their allies?). Please say something about standardization of NATO equipment (especially calibers and fuels), dieselization in the '60s (the range of the gas M48A2 is 160 miles compared to 300 mi for the diesel M48A3) and metrification. When did armies start bringing their own gas fuel for heating meals instead of relying on wood? Should probably mention that canning was explicitly invented to preserve food for soldiers. Need something about airdrop. Shinseki's Army and the conversion of Heavy Brigades to Stryker brigades and brief flirtation with intratheatre lift should probably be mentioned. What about aerial refueling and transcontinental strategic airlift? The Suez and Panama Canal? Are new passages through the arctic relevant? Use of GPS? What is the U.S. base strategy and when did that come about? How does the U.S. military stockpile equipment abroad in ready reserve? NATO palletization and Russia's failure to adopt this. Article should note corruption and failures of accountability in Russian supply depots and a failure to invest in support vehicle acquisition. Schierbecker (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe also the discovery of the cause and cure for Rickett's, allowing for longer deployments and blue water navies. Have you ever read Omnivore's Dilemma? The first chapter where he laments the explosion of production of kilocalories from processed corn, namely corn syrup, consumed by world. The surplus of energy-dense processed food has surely affected the way militaries feed themselves and victims of humanitarian disasters. I don't have a good source readily available, but I'll try to find one. Food surplus on this scale is without precedent in history. Particularly after the Dust Bowl, the U.S. government has subsidized food overproduction partially to meet potential wartime need. Is this done anywhere else? Another interesting rabbit hole: the USDA cheese caves of Missouri. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rickets (vitamin D deficiency) was not a major problem, since northern Europeans have pale skin, but scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) and beri beri (vitamin B deficiency) were. I've written about this before, so the material is on hand. What is interesting is that the discovery of the cause (vitamin deficiency) dates only to the inter-war period, about 150 years after the treatment was found. I will also add a bit about tropical diseases (malaria) and antibiotics. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, yep I meant scurvy. Schierbecker (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of armies using gas fuel to heat food. In my day we had hexamine stoves to heat our food and brew a cup of tea. I haven't read the Omnivore's dilemma. I will have a look. Corn syrup is seldom used here; we have to sweeten our tea with sugar, which is produced here in large quantities. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I sweeten my tea with honey personally. But I get why corn syrup would be less common elsewhere. But I would think global production of energy dense food staples has increased leading to less famine. Schierbecker (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but global populations are expected to increase by a third by 2050, thereby wiping out the surpluses. There's an article on this, Green Revolution, but it is out of scope. Most countries that subsidise food production do so for food security purposes. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The diesel vs gasoline tank engine controversy is a long-running one in the US. It dates back to World War II, when the Guiberson diesel engine was rejected in favour of the Ford GAA engine. (The General Motors 6046 diesel was used for Sherman tanks shipped to the UK and USSR, which demanded diesel engines.) Early versions of the M48 Patton used gasoline, but in Vietnam the diesel was preferred. I think this is too detailed for this particular article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgement. Please let me know if I suggest something in this review that doesn't make sense. I'm not an SME. And that sounds interesting. Do you happen to have any material you could point me to on the subject of that controversy? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That is exactly what I was looking for. I will work through this list. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have added some additional information about: Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * tooth-to-tail ratios
 * economic warfare
 * vitamins
 * diseases
 * automatic supply
 * Also added a paragraph on Mesoamerica, mainly in keeping with my effort to give this article as global a perspective as possible. is the expert here, so I hope he can jump in with some observations. (Apparently, the obsidian artifacts found in Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Ohio came from Obsidian Cliff in Wyoming, inside Yellowstone National Park, and Bear Gulch in Idaho, just west of the National Park boundary.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything to add on any of these things: the multirole-erization of aircraft, crew reduction and automation (particularly on ships), loitering UAVs? I'm curious also if you've come across any information about the disaggregation of deployable units? In Iraq/Afghanistan I believe the U.S. Army transitioned to Brigade Combat Teams from division size units. Is that part of a larger trend? Can Kabul airlift be mentioned? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is tactical rather than logistical. Mentioned the Kabul airlift. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Has modern weather forecasting improved the reliability of logistics? Allied weather forecasting was supreme in WWII due to the strategic location of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland (See the book, The Forecast for D-Day). Mention some failures to account for weather. Schierbecker (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Military logistics is increasingly taking pages from commercial logistics. Please mention something about Japanese TQM, just-in-time, The Toyota Way and/or Kaizen. Also military analogues lean logistics and focused logistics. Mention challenges to adopting this way as well. Schierbecker (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I will add a bit about this in the next few days. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The South West Pacific Area adopted one of its key features, the block loading of ships for a particular destination. Please define "block loading".


 * Helicopters were used by the United States in the Korean War to deliver supplies. A statement of the obvious. Was U.S. the first widescale user of helicopters in war? Consider also mentioning Mobile Army Surgical Hospital by name and also state importance of "golden hour."


 * Can you mention LCACs? Schierbecker (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

comments Support from Artem
Hey, I'm new to A-class reviews, but would treat it as extended GA-review. I'm not an expert in military hostory, so please ignore everything that sounds stupid.


 * Welcome! I'm always in need of reviewers. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Antiquity


 * The most basic requirements of an army were food and water. - they still are, aren't they?
 * ✅ Yes. Changed to "are". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By 700 BCE, Assyria had developed a standing army, - link Standing army
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Roman army ration ... - maybe link to Food in ancient Rome
 * ✅ vacilating between Food in ancient Rome and Military of ancient Rome. Gone with the latter. Could use a Roman aficionado like . Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the passage on the Roman military diet in History of military logistics is quite good (based on a quick read-through). It hits all the things a general reader of this article would need or want to know, maybe more clearly and concisely than either of those two links at present. But I too think that Military of ancient Rome should be the correct link in terms of where a reader of this article would most benefit from landing, and maybe that section will expand in future. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An army of 60,000 required 95,000 litres (21,000 imp gal) for the men and 720,000 litres (158,000 imp gal) for the animals.[15] - I think it's litres of water?
 * ✅ Yes. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Romans constructed a network of roads... - link Roman roads
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Roads were not necessary for the movement of troops, since the soldiers and their pack animals could just as easily travel along unimproved dirt tracks - but how? Isn't it easier and faster to travel by roads, why it's "just as easily"?
 * ✅ Deleted "just as easily". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Romans preferred to use sea travel when they could - maybe link to Roman navy or Ships of ancient Rome
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Middle ages
 * Feudalism was therefore a distributed military logistics system. - is it the same as "Under feudalism, a distributed military logistics system was used."? It reads strange that "feudalism was a logistics system".
 * The source says "Feudalism was in effect a logistical system". Deleted "therefore". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While on campaign, soldiers in the medieval period (the fifth to fifteenth centuries) were often responsible for supplying themselves - was it universal, or specific to Europe?
 * I've added "in Europe" because that is supported by the source. The practice was actually more widespread. I've made a deliberate effort to move away from a Eurocentric article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Later, during the German civil war in the early 1070s - link to Saxon revolt of 1077–1088
 * ✅ Switched to that. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They were also filled with valuable objects, and wealthy persons who could be ransomed for substantial sums. - "filled with wealthy persons" sounds strange
 * ✅ Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In sub-Saharan Africa - capitalize as in Sub-Saharan Africa
 * ✅ Capitalised. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Supply by sea was not necessarily that much easier than supply by land - but in Antiquity it was it was less expensive to ship a tonne of grain from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road - was situation the same here? was it still so much cheaper to transport everything by sea, even accounting for loading and unloading, stowage, and moving supplies?
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * xiquipilli - italics? what language is this?
 * ✅ Nahuatl. Added a lang template, which italicises the text. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Early modern
 * maybe use File:Sebastiaan Vrancx - Soldaten ueberfallen ein Fuhrwerk mit Reisenden.jpg instead of File:1647 Vrancx Marauding soldiers anagoria.JPG
 * Disappointed. They are the same painting. Stuck with the brighter one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * new comments
 * Starting in the late sixteenth century, armies in Europe increased in size, to more than 100,000 or more in some cases. - just for better context - was it because of some technological advancements or because countries became more wealthy and could afford paying for larger armies?
 * ✅ Yes. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and they travelled at half the speed of the rest of the army - what was the ordinary speed of the army then?
 * ✅ Between 10 and 30 km per day. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With these arrangements there was a gradual increase in the use of magazines - why not "supply depots"?
 * Following the literature. "Magazines" is the term usually employed at the time. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * for the paintings - add links to authors, Sebastiaen Vrancx, and Johannes Lingelbach, c. 1674
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mons could not be besieged in 1684 because of a lack of forage in the area. - add where Mons is, and who tried to besiege it (and in what war)
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Appert used glass instead of tinplate as the quality of French tinplate was poor, but tinplate was of good quality and widely available in the UK. - maybe replace second 'tinplate' with 'it' to avoid repetition?
 * ✅ Re-worded to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The British shipped 5,253,538 long tons (5,337,841 t) of ammunition to France, but 5,438,602 long tons (5,525,875 t) of hay and oats to feed the animals. - I don't have the source, but does it actually have such precision? (I would expect something like "shipped 5 million long tons", but I'm not an expert.)
 * Yes, the source uses this precision. I considered replacing it, but it shows the quality of administration of the period. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In 1912, Casimir Funk theorised - he needs some introduction
 * ✅ He deserves to be a lot more famous than he is. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Stopping at the Second World War for now. Artem.G (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I still have no time for the review, but I'll try to finish it by the end of this week. One comment though - I think that these two photos from materiel can be used in the article, especially the modern one. File:USMC tanker trailer lowered over the side of SS Gopher State in Thailand, May 1998.jpg, File:RASC troops stacking ration boxes in the harbour at Dieppe, 14 October 1944. B10867.jpg Artem.G (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, I completely forgot about the review, sorry for that! I just reread it, and I'm happy to support this great article for the A-class! Artem.G (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe
I'll be taking a look here soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC) I'll leave my comments there, but if you think there are any more areas you'd like me to look at I'd be happy to do so. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, which part of 1704 are you referencing with Cadogan? He was promoted brigadier-general in August
 * The source was talking about him at the time of the March to the Danube. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article switches between including "Sir" in links for names and not doing so
 * ✅ Per the comments below, neither is required, so removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the paragraph in question amply demonstrates that Marlborough's supplies were "prepositioned supplies"
 * "Rivers were also subject to varying water levels" which in this context is relevant why?
 * ✅ Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "frustrated by logistical difficulties" considering this paragraph praises the Chinese "rich agricultural resources", what are these difficulties that then work against this?
 * "What they lacked was the land transportation infrastructure" and so how did this affect the conduct of the war?
 * ✅ Added a bit about this.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and gained the experience" ?
 * "Falkland Islands garrison (1767–1772)" what are these dates in relation to?
 * ✅ Reworded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article could do a better job signposting that Napoleon's "foraging" was often looting
 * Very surprised about the lack of a mention of the Lines of Torres Vedras. Massena's army was defeated not by military action but by a scorched earth policy that made foraging impossible for the French and starvation the only option before retreat
 * ✅ Never heard of it - outside my field of expertise - added a reference to it.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Lind was ever knighted
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time of your mentioning Pringle wasn't a baronet
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
G'day Hawkeye, heroic effort to get this together. Given I'm recovering from some surgery, it may take me quite a while to work through this, though it is in fine condition already. So bear with me.
 * Hope you have a swift recovery. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * the comparison "from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but this is a scenario where sea was the only way to bring grain to Rome from Egypt, and there was no road to compare it to. Perhaps it would be better to use an example within Italy to show the cheapness of sea transport. Or even drop Rome and Egypt from the statement. Surely it was far quicker and cheaper to bring grain by sea along the Roman coast than by road? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the Med wasn't exactly easy to travel over in the Iron Age, so perhaps it isn't a great example in that respect either.
 * ✅ Changed to "it was far less expensive to transport by sea than by road" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "for an entire whole campaign" delete either entire or whole
 * ✅ Deleted "whole" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Antiquity
 * suggest using – as that part of the ration was issued unground –  as the sentence reads rather oddly now
 * ✅ Trying to say too much in one sentence. Changed as suggested.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "An army of 60,000 required 95,000 litres (21,000 imp gal) of water for the men and 720,000 litres (158,000 imp gal) for the animals" every day?
 * ✅ Yes, every day. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "However, it was less expensive to ship a tonne of grain from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road" same observation
 * ✅ Tweaked the wording slightly.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Middle Ages
 * Is there anything that could be added regarding the Ottomans here beyond camels? Or campaigning logistics in Africa beyond North Africa?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * combination of military forces made up of local troops (owing fealty or allegiance to local warlords or nobles)? - just something to explain the local nature of them.
 * Not sure what you mean here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you need to explain that large forces had to be made up of smaller forces controlled by vassals of the king etc, and they owed first loyalty to their local lord. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * presumably the Mongols also ate the horses? How did they move then?
 * ✅ Added more about the Mongol diet. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the food render adds. Do you mean that they were able to maintain a considerable retinue of fighting men by moving them around within their lands feeding them using the local populace?
 * Not sure what this refers to. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The feorm. I think you need to explain what about it made maintaining forces easier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you could probably move the bit about the Chinese and Indians not using horses as draft animals to the para about beasts of burden.
 * ✅ Moved. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Early modern
 * the Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries subsection is very French-focussed. Could you expand on developments in other parts of the world? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the final two paras of the Napoleon subsection drift away from Napoleon to some extent, and mainly into medical issues, although the links with logistics are not clearly made out. Could you perhaps create a new subsection to introduce medical and disease aspects of logistics here, and make a clearer link? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Created a new subsection.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Nineteenth century
 * in general, is there anything that can be said here or earlier regarding ammunition supply and expenditure for muskets and rifles? Obviously the advent of bolt and gas operated rifles (and earlier firearms tech) increased the need for ammunition resupply.
 * ✅ This is covered in the Napoleonic and First World War sections. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * could something be said for the need for armorers, wheelwrights, farriers and vets to accompany units?
 * ✅ Added a sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * also, changes in uniform that facilitated replacement and repair?
 * ✅ Added a paragraph on the advent of uniforms. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Twentieth century
 * Ukraine wasn't a country then.
 * Check out the Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case, I strongly recommend linking to that article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * could you add some material about logistics on the Eastern Front of WWI (Russia and Austria-Hungary), and the Ottomans as well?
 * ✅ Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * under WWII, could you add coverage of logistics for the Russians and include the arctic convoys?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * also under WWII, could you mention Japanese garrisons feeding themselves with locally grown produce later in the war?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * perhaps a mention of the Malta convoys and logistics support of the forces in the Western Desert?
 * ✅ Added more about the North African campaign. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-Second World War (should this be a level higher as it includes Twenty-First century developments? And change the earlier one to "World Wars" or something?
 * ✅ Changed the heading. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * mention the Berlin airlift?
 * ✅ Mentioned in the Second World War section. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * could something be added to bring it right up to date, such as mention of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
 * ✅ Iraq and Afghanistan are mentioned in the final paragraph. Added a paragraph on the role of logistics in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I had thought that there was little that was new, but recent discussions with the Australian Army indicate that it raised concerns. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I reckon that's me done. Brilliant job, ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your review is greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All good. I consider this is now very comprehensive. Brilliant work on a very important subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment Support by Donner60

 * All of the images are from Wikimedia Commons and have the required image information on the Commons pages. All are either public domain or own work with a version of a Creative Commons share-alike license. Clicking on the image leads to the Wikimedia Commons page from which there is a link to the Creative Comments page providing info on the applicable license type. None have restrictions unacceptable for Wikipedia use. Donner60 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I made three small edits: typo correction ("where">"were"), singular word to plural, delete redundant "in shipping."
 * I have some familiarity with the subject. This is an outstanding summary of its history.
 * Support for A class. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review

 * Did something get messed up with Bachrach and Buell?
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You've got some titles in title case and others in sentence case. Pick one and standardize throughout.
 * ✅ Standardised on title case. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Other than these issues, the sources and citations are consistently formatted with all required information.
 * Is there a link to Chandler's Lines of Torres Vedras article?
 * ✅ I got it off ProQuest. Added a link, but you will need a subscription. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are high-quality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm a little concerned that coverage of the logistical aspects of the Eastern Front is pretty minimal. Both the Soviet and German armies used a WWI-style system with extra trucks and both suffered severe defeats when outrunning their supply lines. Even with the flood of trucks provided by Lend-Lease, the Soviets had notable operational pauses between offensives as railheads and supply depots had to be moved forward. I think that something about continuing to use the old ways, including porters, when full mechanization is unaffordable or impractical in terrain like the Kokoda Trail or heavy jungle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added another paragraph about the Eastern front, and a couple of sentences about the use of animals and porters by the Allies. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that the author is mixing tonnage with the weight of the ship. Re-worded the text to avoid the issue. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Most ships were relatively small, weighing 30 to 40 tonnes." Possibly "weighing" should be 'with a freight capacity of' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source says: "The Romans routinely carried supplies for the army in merchantmen or transport ships, called onerariae naves in Latin, and phortegoi, hokladai or skeuophorai neai in Greek. By the first century, ships could carry well over 900 metric tons (tonnes) of grain; vessels of 360 to 450 tonnes were not uncommon. Rougé notes the difficulty of estimating the tonnage of ancient vessels, but estimates that average Roman merchant ships ran from 90 to 150 tonnes. Houston’s analysis shows that though the Chinese built 1000-tonne ships in the 13th and 14th century A.D., 80 percent of their seagoing craft were under 40 tonnes. Similarly, 16th century port manifests from London show that 56 percent were of 40 tonnes or less, 82 percent of 60 tonnes or less and only 4.7 percent were of 100 tonnes or more. This suggests that the average Roman merchant ship probably weighed no more than 30 to 40 tonnes, and almost certainly less than 60 tonnes."
 * I like the way that source segues from capacity to vessel weight. Do academics not proof read their work these days? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * An image review would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * Consider adding alt text.
 * Do we need two images of the same Roman legionnaire's back pack?
 * ✅ The relevant part is the back, but if I just display that the reader would not know what they are looking at. Combined the two images in a gallery. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Any images of logistic operations on the Eastern Front? From either the First or Second World Wars.
 * ✅ Added an image. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Any non-Roman, and preferably non-western, images of logistical operations from Antiquity?
 * ✅ Added an image of an ancient road in Turkey. Probably Roman by relevant.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "File:.Tapisserie de Bayeux 1066 1082 Chariot avec du vin et des armes.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As does "File:Jan Brueghel (I) and Sebastian Vrancx - Assault on a Convoy.jpg".
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And "File:Johannes Lingelbach - Flemish Town Sieged by the Spanish Soldiers - WGA13054.jpg".
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Caption: "Assault on a convoy by Sebastiaen Vrancx (c. 1612)". MOS:CREDITS says "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page."
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly "Painting of marauding soldiers by Sebastiaen Vrancx" and "A Flemish Town is besieged by Spanish Soldiers by Johannes Lingelbach".
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source for "File:Sebastiaan Vrancx - Soldaten ueberfallen ein Fuhrwerk mit Reisenden.jpg" is dead.
 * Link is dead and it isn't archived. Could replace it with File:1647 Vrancx Marauding soldiers anagoria.JPG or another image. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "File:1647 Vrancx Marauding soldiers anagoria.JPG" looks good, but add a US PD tag. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replaced. URAA tag added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As is that for "File:RASC troops stacking ration boxes in the harbour at Dieppe, 14 October 1944. B10867.jpg".
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "German horse-drawn supply bottleneck in front of provisional bridges during Operation Michael in 1918". What is a provisional bridge? One which provisions pass over?
 * ✅ A temporary bridge. Changed caption to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Pallets and containers of equipment in a logistics support area during Operation Desert Shield". Any chance of a date.
 * ✅ Added "in 1991". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from replacing the Vrancx this is good to go, so on the assumption that will happen I will pass the images. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)