Talk:Operation Deep Water

A fact from Operation Deep Water appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1957 NATO exercise Operation Deep Water involved the first use of helicopter-borne amphibious assault by the United States Marine Corps during an overseas deployment?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

Wikipedia

Military history: Maritime / Cold War C‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article launch[edit]

Article duly launched.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic overview[edit]

On Ed17 talk page, Graeme Leggett noted that: "I think some common approach is needed on NATO exercise articles. On the one hand, some degree of background is necessary for each article to be put into context: eg with respect to current doctrine or the results of the previous similar exercise, or a change in the political situation. On the other hand, I think largely political rather than operational viewpoints are too distant from the point and overlong quotes are not useful - deprecated even per MoS etc. Is this something worth flagging up at the MilHist talkpages?" Given the fact that the Eisenhower administration developed its so-called "New Look" approach in defense strategy which emphasized massive retaliation, and this policy represents an evolution from the containment policy of the Truman administration. Also, for the U.S. Navy, historian Samuel P. Huntington set forth a naval strategy oriented to naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. This strategic background is appropriate and essential to understanding the historical context for NATO exercises in 1957. This assertion that this is covered by other articles is not appropriate approach and does a disservice to our user audience.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Command structure[edit]

The suggestion that this background information is duplicative and unnecessary is an absolute non sequitur. Please note that Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe did not exist at the time of such earlier NATO Southern Region military exercise as 1952's Exercise Longstep and 1952's Exercise Grand Slam. In fact, Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe (STRIKFORSOUTH) was created after the creation of Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) under Lord Mountbatten, and STRIKFORSOUTH was created to maintain American control over U.S. nuclear weapons on U.S. Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier in accordance with the McMahon Act. Therefore, this background information on the command structure for Operation Deep Water is approbriate. Consequently, the assertion that this information is covered by other articles is incorrect and also does a disservice to our user audience to exclude this information for this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an existing article that gives the command structure, it is normally better to link to that after giving the briefest background rather than fuller explanation that would dominate the article (WP:UNDUE). If the restructuring of a command was directly relevant to the article content and the events in the article - eg a brigade being newly reorganised then put straight into battle and suffering calamitous losses, then I cna see a point for more info, and perhaps there would also be some follow-up in an "aftermath" section (to continue the analogy, the replacement of commanders or a further restructuring)

At the moment the article is still sketchy - jumping almost immediately into the air assault and skipping the first couple of days. No mention of how opposing forces were simulated, the necessary cooperation of Turkey, whether any other NATO elements were present - and so large sections on political background and force comoistion seem unecessary as "undue" detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Graeme. The two sections are unnecessary duplications of detail at other articles, and the article misses out things like opposing forces, WHNS from Turkey, any other forces that the US, etc. The two re-re-re-inserted sections can be reduced to single sentences linking NATO and SHAPE, with the politics, and AFSOUTH, with the command structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the material mentioned above is covered at AFSOUTH with some at United States Sixth Fleet - multiple duplications. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman, I moved the STRIKFORSOUTH information in a greatly truncated form into the Operational summary section of the article, leaving the Strategic overview information in the Background section. I do this in the spirit of collaboration and amenity. Regarding the article's sketchiness, as its original creator, I did my due diligence on its research, but if anyone can locate additional information on Operation Deep Water, then by all means bring it forward for us to examine.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coverage lacking[edit]

I reassessed against the checklist because of what i see as lack of coverage

Background - no mention of the Turkish angle.
We have a single sentence describing a simulated nuclear attack without mentioning key elements - by who, against who, the simulated outcome

We then jump forward four days to the amphbious assault. Was the assault simulated opposed?

And finally the outcome is a single quote by a participant. No indication if lessons were learned, political situation changed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]