Wikipedia:Peer review/Military logistics/archive1

Military logistics

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... I am unsure of whether the article covers the topic or not. The history section is now a summary of a long article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Suggestions as to what else the article should cover and ideas for improvement sought.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking strictly to comprehensiveness, though I'm happy to do a more fine-grained nit-pick if it would be useful. I sympathise that resources may be hard to come by, but at the moment I think this is very much an Anglo-American take on the subject.

The "Etymology and definition" section has three long definitions that are all, basically, American in origin. It's interesting that, for example, we quote Rogers at great length, but not Jomini, when the former is a far more influential military thinker. At the risk of making a milhist cliché, did Clausewitz have anything to say on the subject? Did the Warsaw Pact have its own definition, alongside that of NATO?
On that Farrow quotation, I suppose I'm not totally clear what role it's filling. If it's there as a historical curiosity, it would seem to be in the wrong place (with the definitions/etymology, rather than with the history of thought on the matter), and perhaps something of an island -- we would want similar comments from much older military thinkers (Vegetius, Xenophon, Sun Tzu...?) on the importance and methods of supplying an army. On the other hand, if it's there as a definition - to help readers understand what Military logistics means -- I'm not sure that it says anything not also said by Lutes or NATO.
The "supply options" section is written partly in the past tense, creating the impression that modern military forces never, for example, employ looting.
Most of my comments from the FAC on History of military logistics about comprehensiveness and inclusive language apply to the History section here -- apart from a very quick reference to the Maurya Empire (which is then rapidly lost in a brief discussion of Roman transport costs), the only mention of something outside Europe is an American operation in China. Napoleon gets a whole paragraph while nothing in Africa or the Americas is mentioned at all.
The "Models" section seems to be pretty much a statement of American/NATO doctrine and categorisation. Most of the sources cited are either adjacent to the US military or explicitly discussing its operations.
A relatively small thing, but I notice that we have eight images, all of which seem to be of modern US forces.

I had a flick around the corresponding articles in other languages (by the power of Google Translate) -- the English article is unquestionably the best of them, but there are details in e.g. Russian, Chinese, Spanish and German which might be of some use -- if only their selection of images. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Apologies for not responding sooner.

The "Etymology and definition" section is all about the word logistics. I should dig up some more Jomini. Maybe Farrow is not required. Clausewitz was mostly concerned with operations, but he did have a bit to say about logistics, which I quoted in the History of Logistics article.
Looking at some of the other language articles, the German is just a stub, but the literature section looks very interesting. (The word "logistik" is obvious copied off the English or French.) The Russian version was very interesting. They call it "Тылово́е обеспе́чение" ("rear support"). As the article explains, this is more expansive than the NATO definition.
The history section is just a summary of the history article. I will try to make it more global.
Our policy on images reflects US government stance, so it is always easier to find American images. Australian images, for example, are harder to find because we use creative commons, which, while not prohibited, are considered NFCC. I tried to find striking images, and did not wish to reuse ones in the History of Logistics article. I have swapped one with a Russian image.
I was most interested in what other other sections/topics could be added to the article.

Thanks again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see -- glad I've managed to be somewhat helpful, even if I haven't hit the marks you were looking for: I hope someone with better knowledge of the subject can chime in on the sections. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]