Talk:Military technology and equipment

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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

Contents 1 Missing links 2 Deleting variant links 3 Major edit. 4 Military technology

[edit] Missing links

There arn't linKs for EVERY millitary item on Wikipedia... someone correct this?

Trying, trying. In some places, it's probably more appropriate to delete what is here and replace it with a link to an already-existing or newly-created list.

[edit] Deleting variant links

I deleted links to various weapon variants underneath Small arms and firearms and replaced them with links to various lists. Feel free to revert back and leave a note why on this page, but I feel that by having links to lists instead of variants we only need to maintain a single page (the list page) instead of this page and the list page. If we're only including variants at all, we should be including every variant. Surgo 19:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Which reminds me, here's my way of dealing with lists and proper alphabetization. Lists should go first, and then alphabetize normally. Example:

• base
  • List of base
  • some variant
    • List of some variant
    • something underneath variant
  • some variant2

...etc

It seems good to me. Comments? Surgo 20:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit.

I made a fairly major edit to this article as it was all over the place and fairly unclear. Please discuss grievances and complaints here before going about with a revert war. Thanks. Midster 17:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the section "Military tactics, Military strategy and Military doctrine" at the end of this article has little to do with "Military technology and equipment" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military technology

It seems to me this is a bit of a confusing article. Military technology is that which is distinctly not civilian in application. Militaries make use of a lot of equipment, from toilet paper to commercial jets, which is not uniquely military, so the 'equipment' part really belongs in its own articles that deal with specific application/use of this equipment. Military technologies that were distinctly military in application were (off the top of my head):
Combat armouring
Sail and masting
Gunnery
Rocket science
Automatic fire
Turreted naval guns
Indirect fire ranging
Submarines
Mining (land and naval)
Aircraft bombing (as opposed to thrown bombs)
Vehicle armouring (tanks and APCs)
Missile guidance
Logistic standardisation
GPS guidance
In other words any technology that has no commercial application or that would be considered inefficient, never mind dangerous, in civilian application.--Mrg3105 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)