Talk:Trench warfare/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 km, use 50 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 50 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavour (B) (American: flavor), armour (B) (American: armor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cutting edge

I deleted

"A bayonet charge could be effective at inducing terror in enemy soldiers, encouraging them to flee or surrender. "

because, AFAIK, there never was one (tho the IJA continued to train for use of bayonet into WW2. If there's a documented case, put it in--& mention IJA (cite: Kobun). Trekphiler 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

World War Two usage?

I'm aware the Germans used trenches in WWII, but not as extensive and much as WWI, presumably due to the new technology. What was the main usage in WWII? I know they used it for artillery and to hold a line (especially against the Russians and during D-Day), but they never held it for long. Mr. Raptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by The velociraptor (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The main use, by all armies, was for strongpoints, somewhat resembling firebases. Trekphiler 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

biased source

That "See excerpts from..."-link doesn't look like the greates reference for unbiased information, heretical.com seems over the top political. (Axelrod, Robert. (2006). The Evolution of Cooperation Revised edition Perseus Books Group, ISBN 0465005640 See excerpts from the Chapter The Live-and-Let-Live System in Trench Warfare in World War I) (?) User:Ssnnllrr —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lock request

Does anyone know how to request a lock because there is constant vandalism on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzer (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed

I have removed the {{Plagiarism}} tag from the article. First, it was used in an incorrect way (it should be used with substitution). Second, I couldn't quite identify what the copyright violation is that the tag referred to. If you suspect some copyright violation, please see the documentation of the {{copyvio}} template, then re-add the template. For further information, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

C$2 billion and counting

While I understand the point of registration, I've always been unclear how it can be done behind the lines & off target, & the article's no help. For somebody even less informed than me, can somebody add an explanation? Trekphiler (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the term "registration" is used inaccurately. The article is getting at what the British called predicted fire, in which the guns could be laid accurately on a target through a combination of acccurate surveying of the gun positions and complex calculations to enable accurate fire to be opened immmedaitely, without ranging shots. I have not heard of settings being entered on the guns before they were moved - that sounds unlikely - but the gune would not need to be in position for predicted fire to be calculated, so long as its exact intended position was known. On the other hand, predicted fire calculations could not be finalised until such things as wind speed, barometric pressure and barrel wear were factored in, so the actual gun laying could not be done long in advance. The gun, once in position, had to be laid by eye on a landmark (the "aiming point") so that all bearings to targets could be calcuated as deflections from the aiming point. Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yorktown

Are the trenches in this pivotal Revolutionary War battle worthy of note? ColDickPeters (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Measurements

I have no history with this article, so i don't want to butt in and change things around, but the methods of measurement currently used here are very confused and, perhaps, confusing. There ought to be one primary style and system in use, perhaps with conversion into the other when significant; and certainly one spelling system. Currently, both Imperial and SI are used interchangeably, and SI is sometimes spelled -meters and sometimes -metres. I don't know who was the originator of the article, nor what would be his or her preference, but perhaps we could come to a single, conclusive preference? Cheers, LindsayHi 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Balloons

This article makes no mention of hot air balloons or blimps, both of which were in use during World War I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.193.155 (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Conscripts essential?

The article states that a conscript army is essential to trench warfare, but many of the WW1 references are about Australian soldiers ("diggers") who were universally volunteers. So apart from the assertion that conscripts are essential, the article demonstrates that conscripts are not essential. LowKey (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - given that the British did not introduce conscription until (I think) 1916, one wonders what they were doing from 1914-16 if not engaged in trench warfare. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Shotguns

Are shotguns given too much emphasis in the weapons section - equal billing as one of four infantry weapons, and given more space than grenades? I'm sure they were used, but I would classify them along with all the other multifarious trench-raid weapons, not as a mainsteam infantry weapon. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of B-Class rating

With considerable hesitation I have removerd the Military History Project B-Clas rating: the article is nowhere near meeting current standards for references and inline citations. Probably because of the absence of reliable sources, I also think the content is often naive and simplistic, and needs a thorough review. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to start a slow process of revising the article based largely on the sources I have listed under References. In doing so I intend to be quite ruthless in deleting dubious or unreferenced statements, so there may not be much of the original left. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Five days in and still only on paragraph 5. Progress slow, resistance stiffening. All I need is another 500,000 editors and I may achieve a breakthrough. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Stalemate for a month or more as I prepared for the Big Push. Gained only two paragraphs in the lead, which I hope carefully give both sides of the Lions Led By Donkeys argument. I'm now happy with the article down to the end of the Origins section (section 1 - so I feel I've overrun the first line trench). Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with it. (Incoming! ;D ;D) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you the guy who's responsible for hijacking this article and making it solely about WWI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.57.62 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Regrets, but i gave up on this project. My resignation statement is on my talk page. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not every use of a trench is Trench Warfare

Would editors please note that not every use of a trench in warfare is trench warfare as defined in the article's scope. Trench warfare requires both sides to be occupying and fighting from trenches for an extended period. The Maori pa or Roman siege works are not trench warfare. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Can you provide a reference for this definition? Because I can provide you with references that discuss trench warfare in relation to the Maori pa (James Belich's The New Zealand Wars (1987) for one, see also Michael King's seminal Penguin History of New Zealand). It appears from the history of editing this article that you are responsible for skewing the article heavily towards World War I at the expense of other conflicts, deleting large tracts of information about the American Civil War and Maori pa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

  1. File:Gunmount emplacement Sectional.png
  2. File:Gunmount emplacement complete.PNG
  3. File:Gunmount emplacement plan with cover removed.png
  4. File:Gunmount emplacement Isometeric.png

Images which can be used. J. D. Redding 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Too focused on WW1

I understand that Trench Warfare usually brings up images of WW1, however it is not the only war in which it was used, as also mentioned in the article. What about the history of the warfare? For instance its use in the American Civil War, or the Maori use. Even ancient use where trenches were built but not used in such a fashion? I guess a history section of the article not focused on WW1 is probably what it needs. Otherwises this article should just be called "Trench Warfare of WW1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.176.163 (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming the article due to "Trench Warfare in World War 1"

I came to this article expecting to find that about half of it would be devoted to World War 1, given the relatively high importance of that conflict in regards to trench warfare. I did also expect to find some information about the fascinating origins of trench warfare in New Zealand, the development of trench warfare doctrines in the American Civil War, the failure of trench systems in the face of blitzkreig in World War II, and modern uses of trench warfare in middle eastern conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war. Unfortunately, no such references exist. The entire article focuses on World War I. I propose renaming the article to reflect this and developing a second article that offers more of an overview of trench warfare in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


It didn't used to be so narrow-focused. Formerly, there was a mention of the Maori methods and a section of reasonable length dealing with the American Civil War. Currently, it's heavily weighted towards WWI and needs either a substantial revision or a re-naming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't know how to fix it - however someone might.

After disambiguation header, there's some garbage: BRRRAAAADLEEEEYY ISS THEE MANNN . !!!!

Some bot has fixed it, however the text is still there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.170.245 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First use of gas!

This article says:

"Tear gas was first employed in August 1914 by the French, but this could only disable the enemy. In April 1915, chlorine was first used by Germany at the Second Battle of Ypres."

Which seems to imply that the first use of gas as a weapon was on the western front. The article about gas itself is clearer, stating:

"Germany was the first to make large-scale use of gas as a weapon when on 31 January 1915, 18,000 artillery shells containing liquid xylyl bromide tear gas were fired on Russian positions on the Rawka River, west of Warsaw during the Battle of Bolimov."

Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.126.77 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the article's about trench warfare. Geoff B (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Field works and trench warfare

I have reinserted the quote by George Ripley that starts: "The construction of field works is as old as the existence of armies. ..." because I think it is relevant, because otherwise it appears as if "field works" sprung into existence some time around the American Civil war and that they had never been used before.

But I do agree with user:Cyclopaedic Not every use of a trench is Trench Warfare.

So after this very long missive, in which non of the analysis is supported with reliable secondary sources, what I propose to do is alter the overview section into two parts the first will be about field works prior to World War I so that it is clear we are talking about field works where trenches were used as a force multiplier, but not for trench warfare. This means that roughly the section called overview down to the sentence "Trench warfare is strongly associated with World War I," will go into a section called "Field Works" and from there will go into a section called "something else". Once that split is made there may be some stuff prior to the large deletions made last year that might be reinserted into that section. Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek war against Turkey

the first real trench warfare was in the Greek war of independence something about it should be added

Nonsense. Trenches had been used since ancient times. Any army besieging another used them. The first "real" trench warfare, that is, when both sides used them, was during the American Civil War, which was stalemated for months before the Confederate capital of Richmond. The reason trenches were not used before in that way is because only rail transport made it possible to supply armies at the front. Before that time, armies were required to live off the land, and could not afford to stay in place -- which is why so many sieges in history failed. The besieging army starved before the army inside the siege walls.
It's not "nonsense" just because you say it is. Besides, you says trenches were used since ancient times, and in the same breath give us your version of the first "real" trench war. I'd really like to see a source for the Greek War of Independence claim. And sign your posts.67.68.45.9 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Only Some Casualities Died?

If you look at the revsion by Petrb in the gas section, you'll see that it says only 2 percent of mustard gas casualities died. I assume this means only 2 percent of mustard gas victims died because I'm pretty sure that if someone is a casaulty, they're already dead.
alex3yoyo 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'Casualty' in a military context means someone who cannot fight because of being wounded or killed. Casualty does not mean dead. See Casualty (person). Geoff B (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad i thought causality ment someone who died. alex3yoyo 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

The heavy focus on WW1 in this article means that other trench wars are all but ignored. I'd really like to know why the Iran-Iraq war had so much trench warfare. The article blames it a lack of armour, artillery and aircraft on each side, but this seems implausible. The article on the Iran-Iraq war itemizes heavy weapon inventories of the both sides, and they were hardly lacking. So what else could have led to this state of affairs?67.68.45.9 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trench_warfare/Archive_2&oldid=1137266737"