Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Early thermal weapons


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early thermal weapons
Self-nom I am submitting this article as part of the process of moving towards FAC. It recently gained GA status, and a reviewer indicated it is not far from FA standard. Having written the article myself, I feel it would benefit from other eyes, particularly those knowledgeable in military history. I hope this review will highlight areas which need working on, and also that by bringing the article to a wider audience it might attract further contributions. I am interested in your comments, and encourage editors to add more to the article as appropriate. Many thanks. Gwinva (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work nothing wrong with it. chris19910 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection You are too much centered on powers around the Mediterranean. The article is very stubby and the choice of example could better be justified(for example you talk and length about Congreve rockets and don't mention Indian rocketry). The sources on modern warfare are questionable, for example the Greek fire siphon was not used in land warfare, and the modern flamethrower not in sea warfare, tracing a direct lineage is nonsense. The use of ballistae in WWI needs to be checked, I do know about catapults and onagers, but that is new to me and I have doubts that it was as widespread as the article suggests. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * response:
 * Stubby? What do you mean?  I have tried to write concisely, yet also provide a good number of examples so people might build up a picture of what was going on and relate it to various situations.  Do you feel the writing style is not worthy of A class?  Or needs work for FA?  Or do you feel each section is not sufficiently expansive?  If I am to improve the article based on your criticism, I need a better idea of your concerns.
 * "centred on mediterranean". I have tried to mix the examples up throughout the main body of the article, taking examples from China, India, Islamic world, Eastern Europe etc as well as the West, and consider it fairly balanced both geographically and across the time span. It is a massive topic and provides a summary of the types of weapons found throughout the world throughout the period (with a few, selected, examples to illustrate), rather than a detailed analysis of every development and every use in every country. However the concluding Later development section is, I admit, a little western-centred, but not exclusively so.  In terms of improving this article to FA standard, this section could be made more comprehensive, but I do not consider its current status insufficient for A class recognition. ("A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the [FA]criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article.")
 * There might not be direct lineage between Greek siphons and modern flamethrowers, but the concept of using a device to deliver an inflammable liquid is the same. (I shall look at my wording to ensure this is made clear.) Early devices (such as, but not limited to, the siphon) threw inflammable liquids made from (variously) petrol, oil and naptha.  WWI flamethrowers were devices to throw inflammable liquids made from petrol and oil (Haythornthwaite, p. 73) and modern flamethrowers use Napalm, from naptha.  Sea or land?  Well, the siphon was used at sea, but other devices were used on land.  In modern times, flamethrowers are used at sea in close actions (which is the type of action used in early naval warfare).  See, for example,,  and our own Flamethrower article (which also draws parrallels with Greek fire).
 * The use of ballistae and other throwing machines in WWI may not have been widespread but it certainly occurred. The full quote from Nososv (pp. 184-5) is a follows: "'During World War I, after several centuries of oblivion, various countries effectively used fairly small throwing machines resembling the onager or ballista (true, the torsion-spring was replaced by powerful springs) in trench warfare; they were used for launching high explosive shells and incendiary missiles into enemy trenches.'"


 * Nossov includes sketches of these machines, which are certainly onager and ballista forms. I can't show you these, but Commons has the following, different, example (right). Nossov goes on to describe British experiments with antique-style throwing machines in 1940 for throwing incendiary weapons at German tanks.  In ref to WWI, Haythornthwaite also makes reference to "a number of ancient catapults and the like used in the early stages of the war" (p. 180).  If you are interested in the later use of throwing machines, I am sure a search of texts will yield more examples.  Gwinva (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.