Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Matterhorn logistics
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Operation Matterhorn logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics (my primary interest in it actually) off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
editHi Hawkeye7, my comments:
- Link to Salina (Sicily or Kansas, whichever one it is)?
- Link to Bishnupur (West Bengal)?
- Link to Louis Mountbatten?
- "hangers": do we mean "hangars" here?
- Yes. Corrected.
- "a fuel pipeline to was": remove the "to"?
- Link to FDR and Chiang Kai-shek?
- "25 Chinese yuan": provide inflation-adjusted value today?
- For the reasons stated in the article, and a few more, this is hard to quantify, but added it was worth about USD $1 in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Sichuan Province in the lead and body?
- Already linked in the lead. Linked in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- "19,000 sq. m.; 300,000 m3": convert to sq. ft. and cu. ft.?
- Seems a bit pointless, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Dutch East Indies and Palembang?
- Link to Wright Aerospace and Wright R-3550 Duplex-Cyclone on first mention?
- Linked Wright R-3550 Duplex-Cyclone on first mention
- Link to Oran?
- "An air echelons": "echelon" should be singular here?
- Yes. Changed to singular. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, adding my support. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- All images have appropriate licenses (PD-USGOV).
- Suggest adding alt text. I could do it if you're ok with it. Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Added alt text for all images, the image review is a pass now. Matarisvan (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Source review
edit- Run the Internet Archive Bot on the page once?
- There are no dead references in the article, but ran the IABot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- All sources are from reliable publishers.
- Do any non-government, academic sources have any material we could add to the article? As of now we only have 5 of these. Have OUP, CUP, other university presses not published much on this topic? I don't mind it much, but this issue popped up at the Battle of Saipan FAC recently.
- I had no such problem with the Battle of Tinian. There is nothing on Matterhorn logistics specifically, but there are some books and articles about the B-29s in general, so I have added three additional sources.
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, excuse the double tagging. Anything in the following sources which may be useful? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Matarisvan (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks. Refs #3, #7, #13, #14, #20, #23, #30, #31: all ok. The source review is a pass, though you could consider including material from the 5 sources listed above and others like these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- The source review is a pass. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks. Refs #3, #7, #13, #14, #20, #23, #30, #31: all ok. The source review is a pass, though you could consider including material from the 5 sources listed above and others like these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
HF - support
editHawkeye; I'm not seeing this listed at WP:MILHIST/ACR. I'll try to post a review by the end of the week. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have added it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, pinging you for your review here. Matarisvan (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've been busier with work than I expected; I'll try to post a review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, pinging you for your review here. Matarisvan (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- "To control the B-29s, the 58th Bombardment Wing was activated on 21 June" - The sources says this unit was activated on June 1
- Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Air planner favored attacks on the aircraft and shipbuilding industries" - who/what is "air planner"?
- The air staff planners. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Indian workers carry concrete from mixer to runway on their heads. When US Army Engineers arrived and took over these same mixers, they were able to triple the output" - such a specific statement could use a citation
- What makes cbi-theater.com a high enough quality RS for a-class?
- It reprints wartime documents Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Support by Nick-D
editExcellent work with this. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- I'd suggest noting the base in Ceylon in the lead
- It already says: "The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance was a logistical undertaking of enormous magnitude and difficulty." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! I missed that Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- It already says: "The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance was a logistical undertaking of enormous magnitude and difficulty." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest briefly noting the debate over whether the B-29s should have been sent to India or Australia in the background section, especially as some work was done to upgrade bases at Darwin to accommodate them.
- Briefly mentioned this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The background section could also note that Operation Matterhorn was seen as a gap filler until more efficient B-29 bases could be captured and brought into service in the Pacific; this helps to explain why such a logistically wasteful project was undertaken.
- That's what did happen; it is not what was intended at all. Added some details about why the operation was carried out.
- "Engineer-in-chief" - should the 'chief' be capitalised or 'engineer' decapitalised here?
- Decapitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can anything be said in the Airbases section about how the Indian workers were recruited and what their experiences were? This section is currently heavily focused on the experiences of the Americans.
- I haven't got much, but I will add a little bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The section on the base in Ceylon should note it was abandoned after a single raid (Operation Boomerang). The USAAF official history has a good quote on how wasteful this was that I used in that article.
- "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery." - it's not clear what this is in relation to?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did the Japanese detect or attempt to disrupt the construction of airfields in India or China?
- I suspect that "cfowl" is a typo for cowl
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Adding assessments by historians would strengthen the 'End of Matterhorn' section. Chennault was right, but he was also self-serving and at times flaky so is a bit of an unreliable witness here. I imagine that historians have noted that while Operation Matterhorn was a colossal waste of resources it didn't really matter given the vast resources the US could call on. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have added an assessment by RAND that specifically targets logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)