Narrative not analysis
Like Mike K, I've been reading this thesis, and have to say I've been underwhelmed by it. It seems to me, now at page 180, that it is more a narrative of logistics support, rather than an analysis of the logistics problems and the evolution of solutions - the 'what, where' with little of the 'how and why'. Mike K queries what Mallett is referring to as 'Australian 3 ton 4x4 trucks'. Mike's query is symptomatic of what I have read thus far: there are lots of 'givens' - assumptions you will be familiar with what the author is referring to. For example, the author refers to 'jeeps', 'trailers', 2 1/2 ton 6x6 and 3 ton 4x4 trucks, an assortment of landing craft, and various supply vessels without any explanation as to the size, carrying capacity, capability, etc, which I think would be a must in a thesis purporting to analyse the problems and solutions of supply during the 1943-1945 period.
Moreover, when the author does venture into the technical, he has made some bad blunders. Statements such as "Each Matilda tank carried 88 2-pounder or 3-inch howitzer rounds, and 36 belts of 7.92 mm Breda machine gun ammunition' on page 253 are demonstrably wrong, and his calculations for the air transport of 86,400 rounds of 25-pdr ammunition on page 120 are wrong, but also demonstrate his lack of knowledge about artillery ammunition.
What surprises me most is that his supervisors, all eminent military historians, did not pick up on such points. Long way from the finish yet, as this is a 400-odd page thesis, and while presenting a fine narrative, has thus far fallen short of the stated aim. I hope it gets better.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Cecil; 21-06-21 at 23:14.
|