Talk:Trench warfare/Archive 3

Bad Article - Two Priorities
This is a bad article for several reasons. I will just mention two, as they are glaring priorities.

1) Massive quote: The second section contains a massive quote from a 19th century encyclopedia that completely dominates the section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in its own right. Wikipedia authors should not be so lazy as to rely on massive quotes of several hundred words from other encyclopedias.

2) Dominance of WW1: World War 1 was certainly the most important conflict involving trench warfare, and it deserves to take up a substantial portion of this article - perhaps even as much as half. Unfortunately, it currently makes up 80 per cent of the article. This is way too much. How about a little more about the Maori fighting-pa, the American civil war, Boer War, Iran-Iraq war, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.206.143 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the first, I agree. This page is not a page on fortification or entrenchment, which is where the detail belongs. Moreover, even there, it should be summarized, not block-quoted.
 * On the second, like many before, you're wrong. This page is not, as noted, a page on entrenchment, nor on uses of trenches, but on trench warfare, of which WW1 is the singular extant example. Mention of the American Civil War, Russo-Japanese War, & other uses of extensive entrenchment predating, & post-dating, must be made. They must not be confused with trench warfare, for they are not. This fact has been frequently raised here before (indeed, as the very post immediately above demonstrates), & the other cases rejected. So they should be again, & in future.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  08:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem w/ respect is that there is no such page for "entrenchment", that no such clarification is made in the article (or really much in the talk page archives), and if a narrower usage of the term is to be used on this page, it must be made clear and the alternative provided for, and the difference explained and backed up with citations, as the argument made by unsigned poster above has been made elsewhere in the talk page, with no good discussion as to why not. Furthermore, with respect to the non-inclusion of the American Civil War, it would seem the Siege of Petersburg merits mentioning, as even elsewhere in wikipedia it is noted as being a significant precursor to the WWI variant of trench warfare. Morgan Riley (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just been trying to clean up the disambiguation page at Entrenchment and it's a bit of a problem that there is no obvious article for it to refer to in the military usage. I had to remove the link to the [{Fortification]] article because the word "Entrenchment" does not appear there at all. There is a link to this one, which I've moved to first place in the list, but it's not ideal. I feel that the military usage is probably the "primary usage" so that an article on military entrenchments should be at the base name Entrenchment, and the dab page moved - looking at the incoming links to the dab page, they all seem to be in military context (though across all points of history, going back to Celtic).  Good luck!  Pam  D  15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir
During the Kashmir section (or reference) the words are written, "the zone could be hot at any time." I, personally understand that, but I don't think others will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootychoon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Scattershot
Since the shotgun has been removed as one of the prime weapons, let me petition here for its restoration. AFAIK, it was not common except in the U.S. Army, but it was used by that army. This IMO earns it some mention. Do others disagree? I'll stare decisis ("show off my grasp of Latin" ;p ) the existing edit pending comment.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  04:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Trench broom" was one of the nicknames for the M97 Winchester shotguns used by the Yanks. The Winchester Model 1897 came with a lug to carry the M1917 bayonet and they could fire six rounds very quickly (one round in the chamber and five in the magazine) by holding down the trigger and pumping, called "slam fire". This weapon was so hated by the Germans (because it was very effective) that they filed a formal protest in Geneva, trying to ban it.
 * Do I think the shotgun should be mentioned in this article? Yes. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Technological reversals
I deleted
 * "Other technological advances made during the civil war that would not be used heavily would come to prominince later. These include land mines, rapid fire weapons, grenades, and chemical warfare.

as anachronistic (none of these were U.S. Civil War-era) & misplaced (they belong in a "trench war defenses", or something; also, I think most of them are covered, already). Trekphiler (talk) 1 October 2007


 * Well six years after the fact but better late than never. Where exactly did you get your facts? Mines were used during the US Civil war, laided explosives with trip rods. The Gatling Gun was actually deployed during the Petersburg siege. Sapping and laying explosives in tunnels was repeatedly tried, without success. All of that is part of trench warfare. There was a reason that the US Army's AEF was so very aware of what they were getting into.Tirronan (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"Where exactly did you get your facts?" Since I'm not the one wanting this included, I'm not really obliged to defend it. However... Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Weapons & Warfare, for a start.
 * ♠Sapping & explosives in tunnels are rather different than land mines. If you'd bothered to study the issue, you'd know that.
 * ♠Similarly, Gatling guns aren't machine guns, no matter how much popular media says they are. Neither were they anything like commonplace in ACW; AFAIK, they didn't even enter service.
 * ♠I invite you to show there were grenades or CW in the ACW, ever.
 * ♠Finally, despite use of fortification in the ACW, there was no "trench warfare" there, so the point really is moot.
 * ♠I'd also add, the most significant killer in WW1 was artillery, & neither HE shells nor hydraulic recoil, which between them increased the lethality of artillery about 20:1 by WW1, existed in the ACW.  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Somme days
I realize it's cited, but Dupuy says the majority of casualties for the war was due to artillery, & considering the effect of HE & frag compared to MG, I tend to doubt MG was the #1 killer, contrary to popular myth. How good is this source on the subject?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  04:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would need to go back and read some accounts, but I think artillery will prove to be the big killer of men sitting in the trenches (which is where they spent most of their time) while machine gun fire was the main cause of death during assaults, when the men came out of the trenches. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I have a hunch that was intended to begin with.  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  05:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

British or American English?
A changing IP vandal who is repeatedly changing various articles to British (?) English in violation of WP:ENGVAR changed "armor" to "armour". I changed it back.

Another editor reverted my change stating the article is in British English. I don't see a clear tie to one nation (as with London or American Civil War), so WP:ENGVAR states we should stick with the national variety of English used by the first editor. The original stub has nothing to indicate a variety. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The static trench situation was established in the Great War before US involvement. Because of that I say the article ought to be British spelling and date style. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (I should have mentioned at first that it isn't just about that one word. This article is a complete mess. We have numerous uses of "meter" throughout, "theater" twice, "armored" and whatever I missed. On the other hand, we have "kilometre" x2, "milimetre", "armoured", and "favourable". Neither one currently dominates.) Yes, the UK (and Australia & New Zealand; I don't know about Canada and can't be bothered to look it up) were directly involved in WWI far earlier and longer that the U.S. While trench warfare has earlier and subsequent uses (that the article should probably discuss more...) and I'm not truly moved to consider this a "strong national tie", I don't particularly care. We just need a consensus before I (or someone else) goes through and cleans it up.
 * I'll wait a bit for any other comments/opinions before I would clean it up. (If consensus is for American English, I'm confident I can do a decent job. If it leans to anything else, I can try, but would appreciate assistance.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, am better at Americanizing a British article than Britishising an American article. I use Mozilla Firefox for my browser, and there is a helpful add-on for spellcheck of alternate languages. It offers four versions of English. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was the author of the last major revisions to this article a few years back and it was certainly written in British English. Spellings in my text have been changed to US English. The article is also written substantially from a British perspective, though that may be seen as a weakness, and the subject-matter has a far greater connection to the UK than to the United States. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two issues. There's almost no U.S. involvement, & it's a European subject. Britlish is proper.  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  04:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling it. British English it is. Anyone here feel confident they know which words to British-ize? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've got most of them. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maginot Line
"The stunning victories by the Germans early in World War II showed that fixed fortifications like the Maginot Line were worthless if there was room to circumvent them."

The article presumes that the Maginot Line was designed to absorb a head on German attack and that the Germans strategically pulled the wool over the French eyes by merely going around their multi-million franc line. What the article fails to point out, is that the vast majority of the historiography supports the notion that the Maginot Line was intended to force the Germans to attack through the Low Countries hence the deployment of the best French troops and armoured forces in the north awaiting the German attack. What the Germans did, was not to merely circumvent the line (as the French had expected) but to strike through the Ardennes rather than further north as the French had expected. Even the Maginot Line article supports this basic point. So this sentence is not supported by any evidence, continues what is essentially a myth, and does not support the point it is attempting to make. Hence it has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.217.18 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more to the point, it has nothing to do with trench warfare. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Even larger scale in the American Civil War
user:Capitalismojo I can not see the source (the best I can see is a snippet):
 * "Trench warfare thus far has produced no really great developments. All that may be said is that now it is being adopted on a much larger scale, and that the explosives used both in ... In the American Civil War, trenches and breastworks were used to a very great extent, and more and more so as the war progressed. Toward ..."

So Can you quote the passage you think proves that "even larger scale in the American Civil War" (than in any and all previous wars). Also what was Henry Joseph Reilly expertise? Is there any reason to think that he is a military historian who is familiar with the use of field fortifications over the previous several centuries? -- PBS (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have found a PD version of the book to which you linked and I do not think that the wording supports the claim:


 * The Napoleonic Wars, did have less critical entrenchment battles that for example the Wars of Spanish Succession a hundred years earlier. There are several reasons for this one of which was, the development of new command and control systems such as armies consisting of corps which  was probably responsible for the reduction in the importance of the classic citadel fortifications  -- for example the advance of the two Coalition armies into France after the Battle of Waterloo was not ever temporally checked by the triple line of fortresses in north-eastern France, because a corps could be left behind to invest the fortresses without affecting the other corps advancing on Paris, something that army organisation fifty years earlier did not have the command and control structures to effect easily.
 * however there were many battles that involved entrenchments, and entrenchment was a well known force multiplier (did you know that a year before Waterloo, Wellington had suggested building field works at the site which became famous as the site of the Battle of Waterloo? --see Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 10). There are two examples given in this article of fortified lines (Lines of Weissenburg and Lines of Torres Vedras), but they were so common place that often they are only mentioned in detailed histories; for example the Wikiepdia article on the Peninsular War has one sentence on the lines of entrenchments that Wellington's army had to overcome in 1813–1814 when invading France over the Pyrenees. The Battle of Nivelle ( (10 November 1813) article is nearly terse "Arrayed in front of the course of the River Nivelle whose route was marked by a series of hills on which the French had built strong defensive positions or redoubts." Yet the fortifications were very substantial and are crucial for understanding the battle:
 * however there were many battles that involved entrenchments, and entrenchment was a well known force multiplier (did you know that a year before Waterloo, Wellington had suggested building field works at the site which became famous as the site of the Battle of Waterloo? --see Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 10). There are two examples given in this article of fortified lines (Lines of Weissenburg and Lines of Torres Vedras), but they were so common place that often they are only mentioned in detailed histories; for example the Wikiepdia article on the Peninsular War has one sentence on the lines of entrenchments that Wellington's army had to overcome in 1813–1814 when invading France over the Pyrenees. The Battle of Nivelle ( (10 November 1813) article is nearly terse "Arrayed in front of the course of the River Nivelle whose route was marked by a series of hills on which the French had built strong defensive positions or redoubts." Yet the fortifications were very substantial and are crucial for understanding the battle:


 * According to this source Wellington attacked with about 85,000 men and Marshal Soult had about 70,000. The front stretched from the sea to Ainhoa, Pyrénées-Atlantiques to the Atlantic which is a distance of about 12.5 mi. This is just one of many such engagements involving field fortifications in the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the thing is that not many people today are aware of just how often this sort of defensive line was used and if they know anything about the wars tend to equated it with battles such as Austerlitz, Borodino (which had some key field fortifications), Leipzig and the Waterloo.
 * There is a debate in Britain over whether Marlborough or Wellington was the better general, but both of them had very good records both as generals of pitched battles and in the storming fortifications. Marlborough's brilliant breaching of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra  and Wellington's breaching of Nivelle line was separated by a century while Nivelle to Vicksburg was only half as long.  The Battle of Nivelle is as I said above is just one not very significant engagement in the 12 months leading up to the downfall of Napoleon, but it involving about 12 miles of works in at least two line of entrenchments and 150,000 combatants and so it equates quite well against the numbers involved in the Siege of Vicksburg about fifty years later. So Capitalismojo I think that you need a very good source to support your contention that field fortification were used in "even larger scale in the American Civil War". --PBS (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a debate in Britain over whether Marlborough or Wellington was the better general, but both of them had very good records both as generals of pitched battles and in the storming fortifications. Marlborough's brilliant breaching of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra  and Wellington's breaching of Nivelle line was separated by a century while Nivelle to Vicksburg was only half as long.  The Battle of Nivelle is as I said above is just one not very significant engagement in the 12 months leading up to the downfall of Napoleon, but it involving about 12 miles of works in at least two line of entrenchments and 150,000 combatants and so it equates quite well against the numbers involved in the Siege of Vicksburg about fifty years later. So Capitalismojo I think that you need a very good source to support your contention that field fortification were used in "even larger scale in the American Civil War". --PBS (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Published in 1830 in "Wellington and Marlborough (Written on the Palatine Hill at Rome, 1822)" in The United Service Magazine, 161–162
 * -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * — has a chapter on military lines.

What French General Jean Rapp said in his memoirs of his campaign in 1815 was: "I went to occupy the lines of Lauter—Twenty-three years before we had defended them; but then they were in a good condition, the left bank of the river was protected; we had 80,000 fighting men, a corps of reserve, and the army of the Upper Rhine assisted us—Nothing of that sort existed now. The lines were merely a heap of ruins: the banks and the sluices, which formed their principal strength, were nearly destroyed, and the places which supported them were neither armed nor even secure against a coup de main."

-- PBS (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)