Contents

Talk:Trench warfare: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:15, 8 June 2010

	Trench warfare is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Military history: Technology / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force World War I task force

Template:V0.5

This article fails tomention the "bite and hold" tactic which was a fair common tactic during World War I and oneof the most effective means of advancing through the trenches. --Gary123 11:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Hmm, note that the Maori_Wars appear to predate all the examples of trench warfare given here.[reply]

The British used the Maori style of Trench war which Maori have been using for as long as they remember. A Pa is actually large enough to house 2000 people. As such was Taranaki which actually had 2000 and 1000 warriros out for war.-Forgot password

probably worth mentioning early [2nd] boer war examples also - ability of dug in mounted infantry with long range Mauser rifles to hold off greatly superior numbers of Empire troops with complete artillery supremacy

Now in. Cyclopaedic (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend renaming the "Mining" section as "sapping", to avoid confusion with land mines, versus underground tunnels.

There were very few land mines in WWI, as far as I know, just mortar rounds stuck in the ground to disable tanks. I've never seen "mining" refer to anything other than underground mines. Geoff/Gsl 22:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The term is commonly used in naval circles to indicate minelaying. I've never seen it (as far as I recall) in reference to land war. Trekphiler 06:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was the main innovator of gas warfare.

Why was this line removed?

Because it makes it sound as though Germany was the only country innovating gas. As I stated in the change, Britain, France and the US made more than their fair share of chemicals. Stargoat 20:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to make that point, I would have expanded the sentence, rather than deleted it. And I don't know how any other country could claim the title of "main innovator". As far as I know, Germany was first to develop and use all the main gases. Geoff/Gsl

Artillery would reach its peak during the two World Wars where it was the most decisive weapon on the battlefield.

I would hardly classify artillery as the most decisive weapon in WW2. I think the original version of this sentence was correct.

Geoff/Gsl 23:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Artillery killed more soldiers in world war II than all the airplanes and rifles put together. In terms of a battlefield weapon, it was the most decisive. It was pretty well shown that the carpet-bombing of cities did little to affect wartime production levels. Stargoat 20:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find that pretty far-fetched but I don't know much about WW2. It may have killed the most soldiers but that doesn't necessarily make it the decisive weapon.

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this article. Geoff/Gsl 03:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Artillery killed more in both WWs, thanx to intro of HE shell & QF (RF) guns with hydraulic recoil mechanisms, pioneered by the French 75mm M1897 (the "French 75"). Only in USCW was the traditional pride of place of artillery supplanted by rifles. Trekphiler 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although both the art of fortification and the art of weaponry advanced a great deal in the second half of the second millennium, the advent of the longbow, the muzzle-loading musket, and even of artillery did not substantially change the traditional rule that a fortification required a large body of troops to defend it. Small numbers of troops simply could not maintain a volume of fire sufficient to repel a determined attack.

Who ever wrote this has never been to Harlech. Or castle castle 'Atlit also known as Castle PilgrimorChastiau Pelerin. It was never taken, and was only lost when the Templars evacuated the Holy Land in 1291. Castle Pilgrim could hold over 4000 people. It was attacked by the Sultan of Damascus:

The Sultan laid siege to the castle with sophisticated weapons... But the castle was well protected against the ...undermining of defense walls, since its foundations were under sea level. The garrison of 300 Templars, supervised by Pedro de Montaigu ... resisted all attack...

Or going back into history the Zealots who defended Masada may have been overwelmed in the end, but against any other force at that time other than Roman Legions, it would probably have held out indefinitely. Philip Baird Shearer 16:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sapping involved extending the trench by digging away at the end face. The diggers were not exposed but only one or two men could work on the trench at a time. Tunnelling was like sapping except that a "roof" of soil was left in place while the trench line was established then removed when the trench was ready to be occupied.

The sapping link definds sapping as Sapping, or undermining, was a siege method used in the Middle Ages against fortified castles.'

I understood that since the early modern period that "Sapping" was the definition as in this article. If it is can someone who knows more about it please update the Sapping entry. Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A sap is a trench running forward from a parallel, either to start a new parallel or for initiating an attack according to

Equally "sappers" is a nickname used for combat engineers.GraemeLeggett 12:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the awkwardness of the Vickers Machine gun contrasts with the article on said gun and its continued use for around 50 years. GraemeLeggett 12:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

further to that, the commments on the Vickers ought also to applay to the MG 08/13 . Discuss! GraemeLeggett 09:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"and the barrel of the gun had to be changed after two belts were fired. It was a fragile and difficult weapon to maintain and operate, but was very effective."

I'm leaving this snippet from machine guns here, until I see some proof. GraemeLeggett 13:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Death's Men by Denis Winter, "In practice the barrel needed to be changed after two belts unless the gun was to be sacrificed in an emergency." (p.112) The original Vickers content came from here, including "needed sixteen men to sustain it". Geoff/Gsl 07:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So we have contradictory sources: the figure 16 for a crew seems improbably high. What period of the war does you source refer to? And how do we resolve the issue? GraemeLeggett 09:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I may quote from: http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/mgun_vickers.htm

"It fired some 450 rounds per minute; after some 10,000 rounds had been fired the gun barrel invariably required replacement." "The gun itself was usually operated by a team of six men." "As a measure of the effectiveness and reliability of the weapon, during the British attack upon High Wood on 24 August 1916 it is estimated that ten Vickers fired in excess of one million rounds over a twelve hour period." (approx 140 rpm) GraemeLeggett 12:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to resolve, I just gave you the source. Whether it's proof or not, I don't know. I assume if Winter's statement is correct that the practice of changing barrels was done to prolong barrel life and achieve the 10,000 rounds per barrel figure. If it's going to be covered, it should probably be done on the Vickers MG page, which didn't exist when I originally wrote this stuff, rather than on trench warfare which is in need of a vigorous prune. Geoff/Gsl 00:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've thinned down the MG section a bit since there is adequate info on each weapon at its relevant entry. GraemeLeggett 13:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added the bit on Canadian MG use; their force was led by a former French Army officer. Unfortunately, I recall neither his name nor my source... Trekphiler 09:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across Brutinel's name. Also a note Canadians, unlike Brits, didn't segregate MGs into sep platoons. And a note Arthur Currie was first to provide terrain maps to every man in his corps. Trekphiler 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of concerns, hence the requests for sources.

"The Germans embraced the machine gun from the outset- in 1904, every regiment was equipped with one machine gun - and the machine gun crews were the elite infantry units." and "The British High Command were less enthusiastic about machine gun technology, supposedly considering the weapon too "unsporting", and they lagged behind the Germans in adopting the weapon."

I don't believe machine gunners were an infantry elite in the German army, that would surely be the Guards, followed by the Jaegers. This reads like a misapprehension of Bidwell & Graham's remarks in Firepower at p123ff. Given the fact that the British issued Maxims to infantry brigades and battalions from 1891 it could be said that the Germans were well behind the British in issuing machine guns to the infantry rather than being enthusiastic early adopters.

"By 1917, every company in the British forces were also equipped with four Lewis light machine guns"

I am pretty sure the "also" is wrong and that the Lewis completely replaced the Vickers in infantry battalions before the start of 1917.

In addition, the claim of a 16 man crew for a heavy machine gun, which was reduced to 8 earlier, was probably in the right range in 1914 or before. French infantry battalions had 34 men for 2 guns in 1914, German infantry regiments had 99 men for 6 guns, respectively 17 and 16 men per gun, most of whom manned or supplied the guns. Angus McLellan 20:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the British adoption of the machine gun. I recall that the rate of fire of the trained professional British infantry man, ie a regular in the original BEF, was sufficient that in early encounters the Germans though they were up against machine guns. Can any one through light on this. GraemeLeggett 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An infantryman with a 10 shot bolt action rifle (like the SMLE) can get off one quickly aimed shot about every 3 seconds; machine guns like the Lewis gun had a rate of fire of about 500 rounds per minute, or 8 shots per second, and held aobut 100 rounds. Get 24 infantry firing in volleys, and you've matched the rate of fire and more than doubled the capacity. Originally intended to increase the effectiveness of archery fire, volleyed fire originally prevented enemey soldiers from dodging individual arrows (which, at ~200 feet per second, is possible). The technique was also used for musket fire--an individual musket ball was very slow and inaccurate, and not much cause for concern, but an entire line firing at once made the chances of getting hit much greater, and increased the psychological impact of the volley. Even in the days of WWI, a single rifle shot fired at a distant, moving target was unlikely to hit, and the target would have time to take cover before a second shot could be fired. A volley, however, multiplied the chances of a hit, and since all shots were fired at once, there was no chance to take cover. The trick, of course, is to keep discipline well enough to have everyone fire at once--not an easy thing to do when the targets start to shoot back... scot 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about mention of the BAR or the Lewis gun, the MP18 or the other various light(er) weight MGs developed or brought into use specifically for WW1 trench warfare? 82.44.252.176 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be relevant to mention the Siege of Khe Sanh in Vietnam? From what i understand the conditions were very close to that of world war I.

Or better compared to the siege of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war.GraemeLeggett 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me Khe Sanh should be omitted. It's more about fortification than trench warfare. The RJW experience should be expanded, though.

As a sidebar, I'd say the references to castles & siege warfare should be deleted & placed on a FortificationorSiege War page; they really aren't trench warfare, either. Trekphiler 02:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This line "One authority calculated that Gate Pa absorbed in one day a greater weight of explosives per square metre than did the German trenches in the week-long bombardment leading up to the Battle of the Somme." is vague - who is the authority? The article on Gate Pa says it is a "historian" but does not identify the historian.

• It's most probably James Belich but I didn't add the statment so I'm not sure. It's pretty meaningless anyway as Gate Pa was pretty small (maybe an acre tops) whereas the "German trenches in the Somme" would be measureed in square miles. Personally I think the claim should be removed.. Lisiate 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the ariticle should include the period of the Maori Wars, now omitted. Trekphiler 06:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include the Maori as the inventors of a different style of Trench warfare. One that was chosen to be more effective and less time consuming as Maori dug trenches in less than an hour with barely 50 men working. A Pa as i said before can house 2000 people. Pa before European settlement were all large enough to house 4000, Taranaki is a good example for these numbers. The "Historian" who's name i have forgotten is supposed to be a famous War Historian, Michael King is the closest i can find, but there was a British historian who named the Maori Toa, the most fierce warriors in history and the bravest men to have lived. -Forgot password.

"Two main factors were responsible for the change. First, the new breech-loading firearms—which were curiously ignored by both sides until midway through the conflict—made it possible for a small number of troops to maintain a heavy volume of fire. A handful of defenders sheltering in a trench or behind an improvised obstacle could hold off a large body of attackers indefinitely. Second came the gatling gun, which multiplied the power of the defender still further and yet did little for an attacker (provided that only the defenders could take cover)."

This concerns me. First, it over-emphasises the Gatling gun, which has an undeserved reputation; it was never common. Second, it over-emphasises breechloaders, which were not terribly common in USCW, either. It ignores the tactical reality: both sides still used essentially Napoleonic columnar formations, unresponsive to the need for increased dispersal produced by the proliferation of rifles, capable of killing at 1000m, and effective at over double the range of the Napoleonic smoothbore. I cite Dyer's War & Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions, & War. I've rewritten the paragraph.

I've rewritten the paragraph on artillery, also. It overemphasized the importance of barbed wire (& misdated its appearance), & oversimplified the change in artillery to merely "high velocity breechloading", with no accounting for change in materials, improved (HE) shells, or recoil mechanisms. Here, I rely on Dyer again, & Dupuy's Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, as well as The Encyclopedia of 20h Century Weapons and Warfare.

I'd also sugggest adding comment on the influence of aircraft on the trench stalemate of WW1. I've heard it said aircraft, by making surprise impossible, created it. (I'm unable to cite a source...) Tactical mobility at the time was insufficient to overcome this, for motor transport was not common; the precursor to blitzkrieg was seen in the "taxi squad" at First Marne.... Trekphiler 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this:

"Blitzkrieg relied on the concentration of armour launched at a narrow front to make the breakthrough followed by a high-speed encirclement of the enemy's front line. Armour was supported by close air support with airmen inserted into army units to direct tactical air strikes."

It isn't on point to trench warfare, & anyone who wants to know about blitzkrieg can use the link. Trekphiler 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the use of shrapnel to mean fragmentation; this is a common error. Shrapnel was a specific type of shell that ceased to be used when high explosive (HE) rounds were introduced. Trekphiler 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the "naming" section, I'm left with a strong sense of Brit/Oz bias. While I understand why (Eng-lang sources...), I'd suggest rewrite for better balance with German POV is in order. Trekphiler 09:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it merit a mention, here? I've read it was developed during WW1 as a response to the trench stalemate and sniping. Trekphiler 01:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It often doesn't get mentioned in ref to trench warfare, but it was a significant cause of losses,people were often shot by snipers, & made troops feel particularly persecuted. It also doesn't get coverage on the Sniper page... As a chauvinistic aside, I'd add a mention of Calgary native Metis sniper Henry Louis Norwest, of 50h Inf Rgt, who racked up 115 kills before being sniped himself 3mo before war's end. Trekphiler 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this:

"Trench warfare is a static battle, ruled by machine gun and wire. The tank was developed to break this stranglehold. From its first outings the tank showed that the trenches could be broken. More and better tanks including the first light tanks appeared during the war on the Western front."

It makes little difference light tanks appeared. And tanks were not developed to "break this stranglehold", they were developed to provide protection in the advance. It's incidental they restored mobility. I also added a mention of their great morale effect on the Germans late in the war; I'd almost say they broke von Ludendorff. Anybody think that's not too strong? Trekphiler 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed caption of Civil War image; often misidenified as Petersburg, this image has in fact been shown to capture an image of soldiers of VI Corps prior to the 2nd Battle of Fredericksburg, wherein Marye's Heights were finally successfully carried; VI Corps' advance was latter stalled in fighing at the Battle of Salem Church.

What did troops eat in the trenches?

Anything in tins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.251.163 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This article is awesome! Kudos to those who worked on it! 24.247.126.44 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with interwiki - there are two types of interwiki in this article - some mean trench warfare, other mean trench (military). Meteor2017 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trench warfare

• de:Grabenkrieg
• es:Guerra de trincheras
• it:Guerra di trincea
• no:Skyttergravskrig
• pl:Wojna pozycyjna

Trench

• de:Schützengraben
• fr:Tranchée
• pl:Okop

?

• nl:Loopgraaf
• pt:Trincheira
• ms:Perperangan parit
• ja:塹壕

Cooperation beetwin oponents,in the last paragraph.I heard something similar about the knives(not saw-like) in a old film.--Pixel ;-) 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section it says that Hadrian's Wall was the furthest north that the Romans got in Britain, but the Romans actually got as far as the Antonine Wall and even had an occasional presence north of that. It would be good if this could be cleared up. Thanks, --Apyule 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands and thousands

I notice somebody changed "in their thousands" to "in the thousands", evidently unaware it's a Brit usage (which I've adopted...). Anyone object to changing it back & leaving it? Or changing it to a more American "by the thousand"? Carl Sagan 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk this Way

Didn't France introduce the idea of "walking fire", for which the BAR was developed? Trekphiler 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The times, they are a'changin'

I question "10 miles". Was it 10 Roman miles (mille)? That makes it 50000 ft. I'd add

"(The aggresive policy extended to aviation, as well, with comparable results, since the Germans were able to use superior unit mobility to achieve local superiority.)"

based on Johnson's commens on Trenchard in History of Air Fighting. I question this:

"fragment wound was usually more traumatic than a rifle bullet, often introducing debris making it more likely the wound would become infected."

From what I've heard, frag would be very hot, travelling very fast; it'd cauterize the wound, where a slower-moving bullet would carry fragments of uniform & dirt particles into the wound. I rewrote

"The Allies sometimes used tanks to get the advantage in battle. Tanks were helpful in destroying the enemy's trenches. It could penetrate barbed wire, and machine guns were useless at damaging it. Unfortunately, tanks of the time period were very slow and very heavy."

to

"The Allied introducion of tanks in 1917 enabled soldiers to survive artillery fragmentation and machinegun fire, as well as breach wire, successfully completing the technologial revolution begun with the rifled musket. Early tanks were slow and mechanically unreliable, and tactics rudimentary, but they provided the necessary means to break the stalemate."

I deleted

"and of date. A similar period would pass when transferring the news to the division, corps and army headquarters. Consequently, the outcome of many trench battles was decided by the company and platoon commanders in the thick of the fighting."

as unclear, and

"The Americans played a major role in breaking through the trenches. General John Pershing saw trench warfare as useless and costly, and ordered the men he commanded to launch both direct and surprise assaults on the enemy trenches, using artillery and infantry fire to strike targets up close."

as over-emphasizing U.S. influence & of questionable accuracy; Pershing's tactics closely resemble Britain's at the war's start. As for this:

"==Māori Pā==

"The MāoriofNew Zealand had built stockades called Pā on hills and small peninsulas for centuries before European contact. These resembled the small Iron Age forts which dot the British and Irish landscapes. When the Māori encountered the British they developed the Pā into a very effective defensive system of trenches, rifle pits and dugouts, which predated similar developments in America and Europe. In the New Zealand land wars for a long time the modern Pā effectively neutralised the overwhelming disparity in numbers and armaments. At Ohaeawai Pā in 1845, at Rangiriri in 1864, and again at Gate Pā in 1864 the British and Colonial Forces discovered that a frontal attack on a defended Pā was both ineffective and extremely costly."

I'd say move it & better integrate it into the historic perspective; as an addendum, it's poorly placed & distracting. Trekphiler 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted

"time the war drew to a bloody close"

as mistaken & wrong in tone, & corrected the given date 1865 to 1863. I added

"rifles, rapid-fire weapons (in WW1"

since there were no "machine guns" in the U.S. Civil War, despite repeated, frequent, but mistaken assertions to the contrary. I added the Minié link & added

" France, by contrast, relied on artillery and reserves, not entrenchment.^[1]"

and

"The characteristic barbed wire placed before trenches, in belts 15m (50ft) deep or more, differed, too; the German wire was heavier gauge, and British wire cutters were unable to cut it.^[2]"

and

"Pioneered by the PPCLI in February 1915,^[3]"

I rewrote to

"As well, they were intended to force the enemy to reinforce, which exposed his troops to artillery fire.^[4] Such dominance was achieved at a high cost, when the enemy replied with his own artillery,^[5] "

I deleted

"Rather than a single, high velocity bullet, a shotgun fires a larger number of metal balls, called shot. While each shot pellet causes far less damage than a rifle round, the standard load of 9 .34 caliber (US designation: "00" or "double ought") buckshot was likely to cause multiple serious wounds at close range, thus increasing the odds of a disabling or fatal wound. "

as not on point to the article. I moved

"Descendants of the "trench gun" still exist today in the form of the combat shotgun and its cousin the riotgun."

to footnote as not on point. I added

"Methods to defeat it were rudimentary. British and Commonwealth forces relied on wire cutters, which proved unable to cope with the heavier gauge German wire.^[6] The Bangalore torpedo was adopted by many armies, and continued in use past the end of World War Two.^[7]"

and the footnote reference to aircraft leading to stalemate, based on historical comment from Canadian historian Desmond Morton (oops, it was Greenhous^[8]), as well as these:

Trekphiler 07:30, 07:47 & 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (BTW, why was "Aces" removed from the World War One references? Also, if anybody's interested, & has it handy to quote ;D, Keynes' Economic Consequences of the Peace has a footnote saying over 10000km of barbed wire were laid. Sheesh!)[reply]

Just the ^{[citation needed]}, ma'am

The article calls "going over the top" attaque à outrance. I added the {{Fact}} tag; my understanding is, the two are quite different... Trekphiler 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaindy87 keeps adding a so-called trench photo from the 1971 war under the post-WWII section which is misleading. Trench warfare was NOT used in any significant scale in the subcontinent, after the First Kashmir War of 1947-48, and to represent this image where there is no historical proof of its widespread usage is against the grain of the article, which clearly says only the Kashmir sector is heavily entrenched, and against established facts. Therefore I've replaced the '71 war photo with a '47 war photo from Kashmir where trenches were used and in fact, the entrenched troops are still visible in the picture. --Idleguy 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that trench warfare was not used in "any significant scale" during the 1971 war. Yet, I have a picture of troops in a trench during that war. Kashmir is not the only sector where trench warfare has ever been used in Pakistan/India combat situations. As you can see from the Indian war movie Border and the Pakistani drama Alpha Bravo Charlie, trenches are used in the desert during the 1971 war and today as well. You simply keep removing the picture I had inserted because it hurts your pride, and your propoganda mission. Until an editor(s) who have been working on this article make a comment about this dispute, I am removing both pictures from the article. 1971 was much later than 1947, therefore the picture I had inserted deserves to be here. You can quite clealry see the soldiers in a trench, in combat, which is what the article is about. Zaindy87 10:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few odd trenches here and there isn't exactly trench warfare on a significant scale. It's like saying just because PNS Ghazi was used in the '71 war, there was submarine warfare on a significant scale. That is the difference. Talk about facts, not pride or propaganda, which have no place here. I can back up my claim that it's primarily in Kashmir that trenches were used in any significant scale, and that too probably in certain sectors (if I am not mistaken). The photo also shows Pakistani troops in their trenches to prove that it indeed was a defensive position that was run over, unlike the photo where only pakistani soldiers are visible with no Indians in sight.

Moreover, the image you added in not appropriate for this article as the article clearly states that "the front lines between Pakistan and India in Kashmir are two examples of demarcation lines which could become hot at any time." as an example of trench stalemate. It specifically talks about Kashmir, thus the image that I replaced is indeed about kashmiri trenches, not '71 trenches. The article's images have to be in sync with what it says.

My sources for proving that the trench lines, are primarily used in Kashmir includes BBC and Asia Times that talk about the past and the present trench lines in Kashmir. If your source seems to be from fiction, be it hindi movies or pakistani drama, then I'm afraid, such a "source" doesn't really count here. Idleguy 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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, Lindsay^Hi 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good luck with it. (Incoming! ;D ;D) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]