Talk:Industrial warfare

The Gatling gun and the Maxim gun's first use in combat should be listed as major points in the history of industrial warfare. The list of milestones towards the end of the page is inadequate.

This page was created as a stopgap to fill the void between the category currently known as Early modern warfare and Modern warfare. Right now I've taken almost all the info on this page from other related Wikipedia entries. Palm_Dogg 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of Atomic Weapons "In Combat"?
The use of Hydrogen Bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was undoubtedly the first aggresive use of atomic weapons but is it possible to apply the term combat to the unopposed destruction of an entire city? ConorH 20:16 14th August 2006 (UTC)
 * Combat does not necessarily mean the two sides were shooting at eachother, in this article it refers more so to combat conditions rather than an actual fight.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You should include the Spanish American War of 1898, steel battleships and machine guns were used, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.5.85 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misnamed?
"Industrial Warfare" sounds like a contest between industries. While WWI might be seen as a test of munitions manufacturing, I don't think that's the intent here. Should this article be renamed to "Industrial Age warfare"? --A D Monroe III 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone makes a page like that I'll consider renaming. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Industrialised warfare or Industrial age warfare would be good.--Kross | Talk 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think a rename is in order, but let's do it right. I suggested "Industrial Age warfare" (with capital A) because Industrial Age is a proper noun.  I left the W of war lower-case because the whole phrase is not a proper noun.  Any differing thoughts?  A D Monroe III 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think if you look at the titles of the other entries ("Ancient", "Medieval", "Gunpowder", and "Modern" warfare), a one word description works. While I understand your objections, this does seem to be a pretty minor one, as far as they go, and since there don't seem to have been any major objections I'm going to oppose any move.  Suggest we move this debate to WikiProject Military history. Palm_Dogg 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always seen the term "Industrial warfare" used (usually as compared to "Pre-industrial warfare"). &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am with PalmDogg on this one. "Modern" serves plenty well in my opinion. If we can make such sweeping categories as Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern (or Gunpowder), than I think we can survive with just "Modern." Warfare has not changed that much over the last hundred years to warrant an entirely new category... LordAmeth 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I was the one who created the article, because I think there was a major revolution in military affairs between Napoloeon and the American Civil War and that there was another one in the late Twentieth Century. The debate was over whether the name "Indutrial warfare" was the best name for this time period (Roughly the start of the Indutrial Revolution to the Information Age) Palm_Dogg 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought we were discussing reorganizing the main categories of Military History, either in categories, or in the Military History article. In terms of having a separate article on "Industrial warfare", I think "Industrialized warfare" or "Industrial Age warfare" are fine options. 'Industrial warfare' sounds too much like war between industries, and is in any case not a regularly recognized term. LordAmeth 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the "ages" of warfare and military equipment should be broken down as such:


 * Ancient
 * Classical antiquity
 * Middle Ages
 * Early modern
 * Industrial age
 * World War I
 * World War II
 * Cold War
 * Modern
 * Future

I realize that four of the last five fall into last century, but we've definitely seen massive change in the art of war since WWI broke out. Oberiko 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the above, what characterizes "Industrial age" warfare (as distinct from WWI). Are we just going to focus on breech-loading rifles and such?  &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not as much as you'd think. For example, most of the technology in World War II was introduced in World War I (although it was usually very crude and unreliable).  The major change, in addition to the rise of industrialization which makes large militaries plausible, was a revolution at the national level, in which countries and armies moved from the personal fiefdoms of various monarchs to symbols of the people.  Not many people would give their life for some abstract king, but would immediately lay down their lives for "the Fatherland."  The changes that bring about Modern warfare don't really occur until the 1980s, when major armies start moving back to professional all-volunteer forces, "smart" weapons come into general usage, and satellites and the Internet make battlefield intelligence both instantaneous and thorough. Palm_Dogg 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In his Western Warfare, 1775-1882 Jeremy Black says the "industrial warfare" was during late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and I would tend to agree.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Submarine Warfare
" All nations practiced unrestricted submarine warfare in which submarines sank merchant ships without warning, but the only successful campaign to date is America's submarine war against Japan during the Pacific War." What about the Falklands War? After the sining of the Belgrano no Argintinian war ships ventured out of port something the American Pacific campaign did not achieve because Japanese war ships were still at sea the end of World War II. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the number of ships involved (a dozen or two in the Falklands) versus hundreds or thousands in the Pacific War, I don't think you can really count the former as a true submarine campaign, plus the Falklands are more of a modern war than an Industrial war. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Spanish American War
You should include the Spanish American War of 1898, steel battleships and machine guns were used, the U.S.S. Olympia was a steel battleship used in the Spanish American, not just a steamship, a steam powered steel battleship that is an absolute prototype of the subsequent dreadnoughts, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.5.85 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misnamed part II
The Category:Military history by era has two problems. Warfare of the Industrial era - this is defined in its main article as spanning from mid 18th century to the 1960s Warfare of the Modern era - this is loosely defined as covering the period since 1970s

The problem is that in General History periodisation the period that has to do with industry is the 18th-19th centuries Industrial Revolution sub-period of the Modern era (Europe, 18th century - 20th century) to 1945. Personally I think this should be to 1938 because the information age begun before the Second World War, still....

The issue is that there is a discord in the articles that puts military history out of synchronisation with the prevalent thinking in the rest of the Discipline of History on what it defines as "Modern History" (which is a taught subject). Further, there is a very high degree of confusion between the main topic article for the Category:Warfare of the Industrial era titled Industrial warfare, and the Economic warfare. I fact The "industrial" part refers only to the means of production due to improved manufacturing processes. The attacks on industries by air forces were not industrial as such of course. Although many authors point to the "large armies in their millions" in fact the armies of the two world wars still represented only about 10-15% of the total national populations, and even during the French and Napoleonic wars the casualties were about 6% of population over their duration. As you probably know in fact the casualties in the forces have declined, but casualties on the civilian populations increased (a direct reversal of the ancient warfare) that is only reflecting on the quantity of military munitions delivered and not on any other "industrialisation" of warfare.

In any case, I would propose that instead of the current
 * Warfare of the Ancient era (10)
 * Warfare of the Medieval era (23)
 * Warfare of the Early Modern era (12)
 * Warfare of the Industrial era (10)
 * Warfare of the Modern era (8)

the MilHist uses


 * Warfare of the Ancient era
 * Warfare of the Medieval era
 * Warfare of the Early Modern era
 * Warfare of the Modern era (with content of the Industrial Warfare article)
 * Warfare of the Current era (with content of the Modern Warfare article)

This would bring Military History inline with the General History periodisation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Industrial warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051128220405/http://www.army.mod.uk/royalsignalsmuseum/postalcovers/cableplough.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/royalsignalsmuseum/PostalCovers/CablePlough.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123093501/http://www.russojapanesewar.com/mod-tend.html to http://www.russojapanesewar.com/mod-tend.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)