Talk:Mitrailleuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
[edit] Incorrect info
Not an error, but an omission: upon reading this article, it seems pretty clear that a good deal of information is derived from my article (http://debellum.org/mitrailleuse.asp). I completely endorse Wikipedia's mission, but I do believe my work--even if it is published on the web--deserves a citation, just as a print source. Thanks. Dr. Marder.
Who keeps writing that the mitrailleuse's poor performance led to a long-standing bias against machine guns in Europe? That's total rubbish! Please stop putting that in! Rusty2005 12:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Rubbish? Are you kidding..it was decades before we got into machine guns again. Ve3 16:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's not true at all!! What about the Maxim, Browning, etc? They were developed in the late 19th century. And in the meantime they turned to Gatling guns. Please stop putting that in, it's not true. Rusty2005 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have much opinion on the factual issue here, but contested facts that are not cited can be removed by an editor at any time, and this is OK. So, if a reputable source says it lead to this bias, we can put this in the article (with a citation) without having to personally agree or disagree. Friday (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you need a reliable source, please see the relevant pages of Richard Holmes' "The Road to Sedan", which I have listed on the article page under "Sources". This book is still the pre-eminent work on technology in the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath. Rusty2005 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have much opinion on the factual issue here, but contested facts that are not cited can be removed by an editor at any time, and this is OK. So, if a reputable source says it lead to this bias, we can put this in the article (with a citation) without having to personally agree or disagree. Friday (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- "What about the Maxim, Browning, etc? They were developed in the late 19th century." Those were all later in the century, and they are not related to adoption. Adoption of those did not really pick up until the 1890s and 1900s. The contetion is supported by the large section on the mitrailleuse and its impact on MG adoption in Machine guns : an illustrated history of their impact by James H. Willbanks. Ve3 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well if there is a academic disagreement over this in sources, we can put both. Ve3 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Holmes' "The Road to Sedan" and his article of June 1986 in "Military History" supports the argument that the mitrailleuse did not put European armies off machine guns, it simply prompted them to use better ones. This is evident in the fact that the armies of many European nations purchased Gatling guns from the United States during and after the Franco-Prussian War, and retained them in service until they were replaced by Maxim guns, etc in the 1890's. European armies fighting colonial wars during the 1870's and 1880's employed Gatling guns, eg during the Anglo-Zulu War, the French occupation of Algeria, and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1895. Rusty2005 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the French apparently used a number of Gatlings during the F-P war, but it took until 1897 and the Hotchkiss gun for them to adopt machine guns generally. -- ChrisO 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that is true, Leon Gambetta purchased several Gatling guns from the United States, machines that had been left over from your Civil War. The machines were largely useless though, as the Armies of National Defence rarely entered conventional battlefield conditions, and when they did, battlefield conditions did not allow for the deployment of Gatling guns. Rusty2005 02:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the French apparently used a number of Gatlings during the F-P war, but it took until 1897 and the Hotchkiss gun for them to adopt machine guns generally. -- ChrisO 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Holmes' "The Road to Sedan" and his article of June 1986 in "Military History" supports the argument that the mitrailleuse did not put European armies off machine guns, it simply prompted them to use better ones. This is evident in the fact that the armies of many European nations purchased Gatling guns from the United States during and after the Franco-Prussian War, and retained them in service until they were replaced by Maxim guns, etc in the 1890's. European armies fighting colonial wars during the 1870's and 1880's employed Gatling guns, eg during the Anglo-Zulu War, the French occupation of Algeria, and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1895. Rusty2005 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is a interesting counter-point, but the evidence for the reverse is also quite convincing. Most of the examples you are talking about are later and there are other issues. Either way the adoption of manual machine guns in late 1800s is quite complicated so its not suprising there are disagreements over this. Ve3 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's not true at all!! What about the Maxim, Browning, etc? They were developed in the late 19th century. And in the meantime they turned to Gatling guns. Please stop putting that in, it's not true. Rusty2005 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a new section, can we compromise on that? Rusty2005 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that is fine, but I will make a note of it farther up in the article. Ve3 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. But this has brought up a more valid point - why does colonial war direct to one particular war waged by the Portugese? We should do something about that Rusty2005 02:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't know why that (link) is there. Also, I further trimmed the upper link, but added some more data about the Hotchkiss to the lower section. Ve3 05:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite & expansion
I've had a productive trawl of the library today for mitrailleuse-related info. Having found a lot of useful material, I decided that it would be best to overhaul the article and also reduce some of the redundancy and duplication that's crept in. Hopefully it's a bit more concise and coherent now!
There are a number of factual assertions in the article which aren't referenced - I'm sure they're right but we need to cite them properly (as per WP:CITE). Could whoever added them (I'm guessing Rusty2005) please make sure that they're properly referenced in the same style as the rest? -- ChrisO 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
All assertions that I have made in the article are based on the relevant sections of the two books I have listed under "Sources", is it necessary to cite every single fact? Rusty2005 22:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not every single fact, but it's usually a good idea with regard to key sections. I've marked the points I think we need to cite. -- ChrisO 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
