Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Tungsten


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers a large, and partially successful, air strike conducted by the Royal Navy against the German battleship Tirpitz in April 1944. The raid sought to knock Tirpitz out before repairs to damage caused in an earlier midget submarine raid were completed, but the 17 direct hits and near misses achieved by the dive bombers did not cause significant damage. Nevertheless, it was the most successful of the series of raids conducted by British carriers on the battleship between April and July 1944.

I've been slowly developing this article over the last few months (as something of a radical difference to my recent run of articles on Australian military aviation!), and it passed a GA nomination a week ago. It's since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. I'm also likely to take the article to a FAC if this nomination is successful, and would appreciate any comments on areas where it could be further developed. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed for GA and have looked over the recent changes and believe it also meets the A class criteria. I fixed a typo. Anotherclown (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: fascinating article. The images seem appropriately licenced, the article is well-referenced and coverage seems appropriate. I have a few minor suggestions/observations:
 * "reentered" --> "re-entered"?
 * "centered" --> "centred"
 * "maneuvering" --> "manoeuvring"
 * check the time format against MOS:TIME, for instance "1.15 am" probably should be "from 1:15 am"
 * "refueling" --> "refuelling"
 * inconsistent presentation "northern Russia" v. "Northern Russia"
 * in the Works consulted section, are there page numbers for the chapter (Introduction) in Bennett?
 * as above for the Tactical, Torpedo and Staff Duties Division chapter in Bennett? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just fixed all those issues - I'm tempted to blame my browser's US-centric automatic spell check for most of them, but they're really my fault ;) Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Thank you for the invitation to comment. I consider this to be a very well-referenced and well-written article with appropriate detail, but the background section might be improved to clarify the relationship of the various forces involved to the strategic effort on the eastern front. As presently written, readers may be left with impressions inappropriately skewed toward the value of Tirpitz in comparison to the value of the JW convoys.

I suggest opening the "Background" section with a paragraph emphasizing the strategic significance of the Arctic convoys of World War II in comparison to Allied armaments reaching the eastern front via the Persian Corridor and Pacific Route. I suggest either the opening paragraph or a second paragraph might describe the convoy organization and scheduling to explain the comparative vulnerability of shipping to German aircraft, submarines and surface units. Cargo ships sailed together with light naval units, while heavier naval units manoeuvred separately to minimize detection opportunity and vulnerability to aircraft and submarine attack. The United States Navy referred to the lighter force as the "screen" and the heavier units as the "escort". Royal Navy terminology might be more appropriate here to differentiate the small warships providing anti-aircraft and anti-submarine protection for the convoy from the covering force prepared to engage a sortie of German surface ships.

Rather than explaining the sailing of convoy JW 58 as a coincidence in the last paragraph of the "Preparations" section, I suggest preceding information should establish the routine sailing of a covering force would avoid identifying this as a specialized mission. The second paragraph of the "Attack" section explains how the covering forces were released to perform the described air attack on Tirpitz after they had defended the cargo ship convoy past the point of vulnerability to surface ship attack. The article should establish this routine defensive mission of heavy naval covering forces rather than imply the strike was one of a series planned utilizing the cargo convoys to bait the surface forces. I believe the article meets A class criteria in all other respects.Thewellman (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments, I'll follow up on them over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've expanded the material on the convoys to provide greater context for this operation. As discussed on my talk page, this was a separate operation from the convoy, which I think should also address the second half of your comments. Thanks again, Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm not going to fix it because I see it both ways, but be aware that you may have a fight on your hands defending "onboard" at FAC as anything other than an adjective that comes directly before a noun. "On board" is the more common spelling. In any case, spell the adverb consistently.
 * Changed to "on board" Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "staffing attacks": strafing?
 * The whole construction was superfluous given that the article explicitly states on a couple of points previously that the fighters only strafed the German ships, so removed. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments and your copy edit Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose also, not much to ce here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.