There's several instances of "would be". In various GA/ACR article's I've sent through the reviewing process, multiple editors have strongly objected to most instances of the would be phrasing as excessively passive voice
"The Overlord plan called for the capture of Cherbourg by D plus 8" - Probably best to have a brief gloss stating what D plus 8 means. I understand this, but readers without a good military history background may not.
" There were significant differences in the way Patton, a cavalryman, and Bradley and the VIII Corps commander, Major General Troy H. Middleton, who were both infantrymen" - I'd recommend linking to cavalry and infantry at the respective points, which would help underscore the difference for the uninformed.
"with the First Army burning 501,000 US gallons (1,900,000 l) per day (282,000 US gallons (1,070,000 l) on 24 August alone)" - This is an odd clause. You state that it was using 501,000 gallons of fuel per day, indicating an average, but then call out a number barely half of that as if it is a significant usage. I think there's a minor phrasing error here somewhere.
Y Typo. Should have 782,000 gallons (2,125 tons). Aside: the Germans measured their fuel in cubic metres. Fortunately, the mental conversion to kilolitres is pretty easy.
Hawkeye7(discuss)11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
And that's through the end of the POL section. More to come, but I've only found minor prose comments so far. Looking like a great article.
Hog FarmBacon04:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply