Talk:Industrial warfare

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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 This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This page was created as a stopgap to fill the void between the category currently known as Early modern warfare and Modern warfare. Right now I've taken almost all the info on this page from other related Wikipedia entries. Palm_Dogg 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Use of Atomic Weapons "In Combat"? 2 Misnamed? 3 Submarine Warfare 4 The Spanish American War

[edit] Use of Atomic Weapons "In Combat"?

The use of Hydrogen Bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was undoubtedly the first aggresive use of atomic weapons but is it possible to apply the term combat to the unopposed destruction of an entire city? ConorH 20:16 14th August 2006 (UTC)

You should include the Spanish American War of 1898, steel battleships and machine guns were used, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.5.85 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misnamed?

"Industrial Warfare" sounds like a contest between industries. While WWI might be seen as a test of munitions manufacturing, I don't think that's the intent here. Should this article be renamed to "Industrial Age warfare"? --A D Monroe III 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone makes a page like that I'll consider renaming. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Industrialised warfare or Industrial age warfare would be good.--Kross | Talk 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think a rename is in order, but let's do it right. I suggested "Industrial Age warfare" (with capital A) because Industrial Age is a proper noun. I left the W of war lower-case because the whole phrase is not a proper noun. Any differing thoughts? A D Monroe III 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look at the titles of the other entries ("Ancient", "Medieval", "Gunpowder", and "Modern" warfare), a one word description works. While I understand your objections, this does seem to be a pretty minor one, as far as they go, and since there don't seem to have been any major objections I'm going to oppose any move. Suggest we move this debate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Palm_Dogg 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've always seen the term "Industrial warfare" used (usually as compared to "Pre-industrial warfare"). —Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am with PalmDogg on this one. "Modern" serves plenty well in my opinion. If we can make such sweeping categories as Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern (or Gunpowder), than I think we can survive with just "Modern." Warfare has not changed that much over the last hundred years to warrant an entirely new category... LordAmeth 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I was the one who created the article, because I think there was a major revolution in military affairs between Napoloeon and the American Civil War and that there was another one in the late Twentieth Century. The debate was over whether the name "Indutrial warfare" was the best name for this time period (Roughly the start of the Indutrial Revolution to the Information Age) Palm_Dogg 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were discussing reorganizing the main categories of Military History, either in categories, or in the Military History article. In terms of having a separate article on "Industrial warfare", I think "Industrialized warfare" or "Industrial Age warfare" are fine options. 'Industrial warfare' sounds too much like war between industries, and is in any case not a regularly recognized term. LordAmeth 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the "ages" of warfare and military equipment should be broken down as such:

• Ancient
• Classical antiquity
• Middle Ages
• Early modern
• Industrial age
• World War I
• World War II
• Cold War
• Modern
• Future

I realize that four of the last five fall into last century, but we've definitely seen massive change in the art of war since WWI broke out. Oberiko 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In the above, what characterizes "Industrial age" warfare (as distinct from WWI). Are we just going to focus on breech-loading rifles and such? —Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not as much as you'd think. For example, most of the technology in World War II was introduced in World War I (although it was usually very crude and unreliable). The major change, in addition to the rise of industrialization which makes large militaries plausible, was a revolution at the national level, in which countries and armies moved from the personal fiefdoms of various monarchs to symbols of the people. Not many people would give their life for some abstract king, but would immediately lay down their lives for "the Fatherland." The changes that bring about Modern warfare don't really occur until the 1980s, when major armies start moving back to professional all-volunteer forces, "smart" weapons come into general usage, and satellites and the Internet make battlefield intelligence both instantaneous and thorough. Palm_Dogg 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In his Western Warfare, 1775-1882 Jeremy Black says the "industrial warfare" was during late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and I would tend to agree.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine Warfare

" All nations practiced unrestricted submarine warfare in which submarines sank merchant ships without warning, but the only successful campaign to date is America's submarine war against Japan during the Pacific War." What about the Falklands War? After the sining of the Belgrano no Argintinian war ships ventured out of port something the American Pacific campaign did not achieve because Japanese war ships were still at sea the end of World War II. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the number of ships involved (a dozen or two in the Falklands) versus hundreds or thousands in the Pacific War, I don't think you can really count the former as a true submarine campaign, plus the Falklands are more of a modern war than an Industrial war. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spanish American War

You should include the Spanish American War of 1898, steel battleships and machine guns were used, the U.S.S. Olympia was a steel battleship used in the Spanish American, not just a steamship, a steam powered steel battleship that is an absolute prototype of the subsequent dreadnoughts, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.5.85 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)