Talk:Red Ball Express

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Ambiguous Phrasing[edit]

For offensive operations each division would burn about 700-750 tons a day ...

A casual reader will immediately assume that the verb burn implies fuel rather than aggregate supplies. MaxEnt 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

African American Red Ballers[edit]

Amazing. Almost 75 percent of the Red Ballers were African-American. Yet, there is absolutely no mention of them here -- (unless I missed it; I skimmed the piece). This is a huge omission. (Anybody remember Eddie Kendricks' "Keep on Truckin'"? "I'm the Red Ball Express of love. I'm truckin'.... deeceevoice 18:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the last sentence (I think). Needs expansion. deeceevoice 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is becoming the default source of historical reference, it's a shame to see this topic completely glossed over in order to remain PC. Was this a military program designed to use low IQ soldiers in a productive capacity regardless of race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. There was a distinct and obvious racial bias against African-Americans in the American military at the time. Many officers considered all blacks worthless, so they would avoid command positions in such units. As a result, many of the white officers in such units were both less than enthusiastic about their troops and also poor leaders. If you look at the differences between the 92nd and the 93rd Infantry Divisions in World War I, you'll see the stark difference in well-led and poorly-led African-American units. There's no political correctness involved in this article. The Army hierarchy believed that African-Americans were stupid, lazy and unfit for combat. They were simply being racist, not putting low IQ soldiers to be drivers.
Deecee, I think we ought to have the 75 percent number in the opening paragraph. Burying it down near the bottom is a travesty. --Habap (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Someday someone's skin color won't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Repetition and contradiction[edit]

This article could do with a vigorous copyedit - even a rewrite.
It is full of repetition - for instance, the bit about the African American soldiers appears in the lede and the body of the article.
But the most blatant contradiction must be '... the allies had premptively [sic] bombed the French railway system into ruins' in Para 2 of the 'History' section.
This is followed by the quote from For Want of a Nail..., (near the end): 'the French railroads were, to some degree, operated similarly, with loaded trains moving forward almost nose to tail.'

Which is it: 'the French railway system in ruins' or 'with loaded trains moving forward almost nose to tail.'?

RASAM (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)