Talk:Trench warfare

WikiProject Military history

(Rated 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. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Caption change

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.

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

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)

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! PamD 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)