Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 71

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

10
20
30
40
50
60
66
67
68
69
70
Archive 71
72
73
74
75
76
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170

Flag of the Austrian Empire

Someone has been replacing the flag of the Austrian Empire, used in the Infobox Military Conflict by removing the flagicon template in large a number of articles such as the Battle of Paris (1814). As of yet no source has even been presented to support these changes. -- Domino theory (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been removing unsourced and unreferenced flag icons for the Austrian Empire that are anachronistically incorrect for the period of the early 17th century thru the Napoleonic Wars. I have replaced them with a wiki commons flag icon that matches the artist's style seen on the prussian flag icon used in those articles. I have given Domino theory both primary and secondary sources for the flag as well as external links on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Domino_theory 'Austrian Flag' and asked him to stop reverting back to the incorrect flag. In addition there are several other anachronistically incorrect icons being used for that period, the Seven Years War thru the Napoleonic Wars, in particular the current national flag for Russia is being used instead of the appropriate Imperial flag of Russia.Tttom1 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a good idea to ensure that any flag icons are historically correct. In this case, though, you've replaced one wrong flag with a different wrong flag: the HRE was dissolved in 1806, so its flags were certainly no longer in use by 1814. If I recall correctly, the actual banners used by the Austrian army at the time had a more complex double-headed eagle design on either a white or yellow field, but I could be mistaken. Kirill 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that in the talk with Domino theory, I also mentioned that this icon, like the Prussian flag icon, is an artist's rendering from wiki commons for the Imperial Standard and is temporally accurate for an icon for Hapsburg Empire from 1700-1850 or 60 whereas the flag icon that was being used was not correct for any of that period. You are correct about the army flags but I wasn't aiming for an army flag as there are too many variants but I did mention and show a variant in the talk the same would be true for the icon used for Prussia and Russia. Many icons being used are incorrect like that for Russia and for Kingdom of Sardinia and others. In order to improve those articles from that period I put a correct and appropriate icon in for an incorrect one. In fact, as I'm sure you know, there is no single flag for that 100+ year period that is completely accurate throughout the period - or even 10 years of it. Flags wear out and are replaced frequently with new issues with changes in design. The French Tricolor is the 1812 pattern of the Grande Armée and quite different from the diamond lozenge of the 1804 pattern. Shall we use the one appropriate for that particular year? As to the dissolution of HRE as HRE,there's no debate, however the flags remained the same with minor variations until probably 1848 or 1867. So this icon isn't another incorrect flag. Its an icon like the one used for the Prussian flag of the period which, by your definition, would also be 'wrong'. Neither, however are anachronistically incorrect as the Austrian flag icon previously used or the Russian flag icon now being used, Perhaps we can work together to improve those info boxes and articles to the point where they have flag icons that bear some resemblance to the period they cover?Tttom1 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's largely a matter of what one considers to be "accurate". In my opinion, the HRE flag is just as anachronistic—that heraldic design hadn't been in practical use for a very long period by the time the Napoleonic wars occurred (and I'm not even certain it was ever issued on general flags)—but I'll grant that it is "closer" to the correct version than the later Austrian one.

The better thing, in my opinion, would be to take a more accurate version of the Imperial eagle (e.g. Image:Wappen Kaisertum Österreich 1815 (Klein).png) and paste it onto a flag-shaped yellow background. That still wouldn't be the exact flag, but at least it wouldn't be a pseudo-medieval one either. Kirill 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a website that has excellent rendering of flags of the Napoleonic period: http://www.warflag.com/napflags/html/flags.htm the owner of the site has created the images and says: "There is no charge for these flags so please feel free to download and use them as you wish. Obviously, I would strongly object to anyone seeking to make a profit from the sale or reproduction of these flag sheets. I would also object to my work being offered for download from other websites without my prior approval." http://www.warflag.com/napflags/index.htm perhaps he could be convinced to allow wp to use his images.Tttom1 (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at that site; this page has some good images of the Austrian flags. (Really obscure technical point: notice that the 1806 pattern switches from having the two heads of the eagle surmounted by halos—as in the better-rendered HRE banners—to having them surmounted by crowns.)

It would be great if we could get access to those images. Unfortunately, for us to be able to use them, they'd have to be released under a free license, which would allow other people to use them as well; so I doubt the site owner will agree to do so. On the other hand, it should be possible to redraw the flags, if we can get someone with halfway-decent artistic abilities. Kirill 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good image for Austria, let's use it. However it makes the other icons, like Prussia, look anachronistic and pseudo-medieval as the Pruss. is stylistically the same as the Aus.. Here's the icon used for the Prussian flag:

and here's the Austrian icon I added:

I believe they both came from the same artist Jaume Ollé and they are from the same web site: http://fotw.net/flags/de-pr701.html. Here is the Russian icon - what can anyone say except its completely wrong? -

. The site owner and image creator already allows some free use as the quote shows, is there a permission for image in commons beside any free use?Tttom1 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a few years ago, but now images for which the author has only granted permission to Wikipedia specifically (rather than everyone) are subject to speedy deletion. So unless the site owner is feeling really generous, we may be out of luck getting those images without having to redraw them.

(If we can get an actual photograph of an old flag, that'd certainly be public domain; but I suspect the colors would be so faded as to make it pretty useless as an icon.) Kirill 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you could email that guy - his email link doesn't work for me for some reason maybe he ok about it - it would solve many problems. Wiki commons has this:

which could do for Austrian Nappy at least but the size with the pole is problematic for the info box..Tttom1 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't hard to trim off the pole:

. Kirill 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's terrific. Domino said there was some way to insert that into the template instead of individual edits? I have no idea how to do that and I think that may replace icons in articles for later periods that the first icon is ok for. I dread re-editing all those individually again but I don't want to screw up the old icon in other articles. I'm looking at some SYW and War of Austrian Succession flags - I think this will work for those too, but not for post 1815. I'll do a few now.Tttom1 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Use flags for the Austrian Empire, not for the German Confederation

If this flag had any use outside of the middle ages, and certainly after 1806, there are sources displaying it as a symbol of the German Confederation. These facts tell us that if not the first, then certainly the latter is more than reason enough to prevent its use here by default. In light of this it is ludicrous that it has been promoted at all, especially since it has not been supported by any sources.

The flag presented by Kirill on the other hand was actually used as a military flag by the Austrian Empire according to sources. There would probably be few problems in using a military flag regarding information on battles, but preferably it should be converted to svg format, and it should definately be invoked by template, as a war flag. Not least to avoid the frivolous repetitive editing and reverting we have been forced to see examples of so far.

However, even a flawless military flag does not represent more than the military. Flags of the World makes reference of the flag already in use as a flag used by the Habsburg monarchy from 1700. This far no better flag has been presented for the Austrian Empire that can be supported by sources. Austria-Hungary has other and more well defined flags. -- Domino theory (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the comments on the Flags of the World are blog statements:

"Austria-Hungary is often referred to as black-yellow monarchy. I think the black-yellow flag was used for the whole, at least until 1867. Zeljko Heimer, 1 December 1995"

"The black-yellow bicolor was not widely used. It dates from the 1700's to 1915, but most Austro-Hungarian flags changed in 1915. It is not clear if the modified flags were used from 1915-1918." Norman Martin, 11 October 2001(there is no support for the assertion of the 1700's see next statement)

"This flag was and remains the colors and banner the Habsburg-Lorraine Dynasty." Stan Brin, 19 March 2003

As you can see from the last blog statement this is the wrong flag for the Hapsburg Holy Roman Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 18th & 19th Century. Also completely incorrect is the use in these same articles of the flag of Russia today - which nation and flag did not exist in that form then. Other icons are also wrong. The flag shown is not just a military flag, it the Imperial Standard, no more solely military than the Stars and Stripes carried by the US Marines is a solely military flag.Tttom1 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. According to this page, the yellow/black bicolor was actually the c. 1730 merchant ensign, rather than the main state flag. (Compare the essentially equivalent c. 1716 ensign, which features the Habsburg double-headed eagle.) I think that, generally speaking, the main versions of the Habsburg flags always featured the heraldic insignia; flags without them are more likely stripped-down versions for special purposes than the other way around. Kirill 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, Are you ok with the flag image you cropped as representative of an HRE Imperial Standard for 1700-1815? Do you agree that the Black and Yellow bar flag is incorrect for the period discussed? Do you agree that the current Russian flag icon of today's Russian flag is also anachronistic and incorrect for this period? Should we remove those and other and/or replace the temporally incorrect flag icons in an info box?Tttom1 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to image of Austrian Imperial Standard 1564-76: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=126248&imageID=89696&parent_id=120431&word=&snum=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=30&num=12&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=16# Photos of Imperial Standard 1792 & 1804: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=125752&imageID=90351&parent_id=120437&word=&snum=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=94&num=84&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=92 Photos Imperial Standard 1806 & 1816 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=125754&imageID=90353&parent_id=120437&word=&snum=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=94&num=84&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=94 War of Austrian Succession? shown in 1896 section: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=124558&imageID=91755&parent_id=120460&word=&snum=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=97&num=24&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=30# Naval Flags 1896-1906 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=124470&imageID=91790&parent_id=120460&word=&snum=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=97&num=60&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=65# Photos pretty decisive.Tttom1 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, people, let's clean up the image, crop the pole, and convert to .svg before forcing Image:GR 134 crop.jpg into articles en masse. I don't think any of us want to associate ourselves with this infectious tendency to shove just about anything into the place of flag icons. Albrecht (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late:)...well, the pole was cropped....Tttom1 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it's sort of a bad idea to just copy the preliminary image everywhere; the better approach would be to clean it up and then insert it into {{flagicon}}, so that we wouldn't need to do another round of replacements once that's finally done. As Albrecht pointed out, there's no rush here. Kirill 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far we have suffered in excess of 250 unnecessary edits and my estimation is that we will see something like 60-120 more edits to get back to the status quo that existed before the the faulty and unsourced flag was forced upon us. That is if we stop with the unnecessary edits now, and it would only be becomming if the one who brought us out here also brought us back to that point, and understood the necessity to do so. (For more on the unnecessary edits ad nauseam, see here.) Correctly implemented this whole operation would probably have taken less than five edits to accomplish.
What I am worried about is instead the rush ahead with the current image. True, it is a war flag of the Austrian Empire, but some of us here does not seem able to separate a war flag from an imperial standard, and perhaps not even that from the emperor's personal standard. Standards and war flags are not national flags, and the Habsburg banner is still the best bet for a national flag of the Austrian Empire. Additional sources that testify to this are Flaggenlexikon and World Statesmen. -- Domino theory (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, are we looking at the same pages here? Both of the links you provide quite clearly indicate that the flag in question is the merchant ensign, not the state flag. The most "official" flag would be the top one here: the double-headed eagle on a yellow field. From the site:

In this way was in the year 1686 officially introduced the golden flag with the twin-headed eagle of the Habsburgs as flag for the empire of the Austrian Habsburgs. Initially it was in use until 1918 as state flag...

Kirill 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we are going for the national flag, not the state flag here. State and war flags have their proper regulated uses, but the main flag is the national flag.

"In this way became the device of the black eagle on golden ground abridged heraldical: black over gold. Since the establishment of the Empire of Austria in 1804 it was allowed to use this flag as national and merchant flag." - (Flaggenlexikon)

Coincidentally, as described the national flag also served as the merchant ensign. -- Domino theory (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The state flag is a type of national flag, as is the civil flag (which is what the bicolor happens to be in this case). The distinction is irrelevant for most countries, as they have identical state and civil flags; but, where it matters, I would certainly think that in the context of military activity the state flag would be the appropriate one, as the subject matter is necessarily tied to the official actions of the state itself.

(In any case, the flag is certainly not even a civil flag prior to 1804, and shouldn't be used at all except in the context of the merchant marine in articles dealing with that period.) Kirill 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we are speaking about the Austrian Empire, it is the conditions after 1804 that are relevant. The Habsburg banner is the relevant national, or civil flag, for the Austrian Empire. State and war flags, or ensigns for that matter, have their appropriate uses and I see no problems in using them in regards to actions of the state or its military, but they shouldn't be confused with or masqueraded as the civil flag. ([1]) -- Domino theory (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Presumably {{flagicon}} and its various sub-templates can be adapted to produce either the civil or state flag, similarly to how it produces things like naval ensigns? That would allow us to centralize everything through the template but still retain the fine-grained control over which flag is better in different contexts. Kirill 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, {{flagicon|Austrian Empire|state}} should produce the state flag, just like {{flagicon|Austria|state}} produces the state flag of the current republic. If we have the state flag somewhere I will see to it that the subtemplate is updated, and I will restore the civil flag to the country article. Will you be able to take a look at the altered battle articles? -- Domino theory (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm done with the Imperial Standard of Austria for the periods I'm concerned with. The svg vs jpg is not consistent article to article - I notice in my run thru. Plenty of other flag icons need to be replaced, however after the fuss over one I'm disinclined to correct the Russian icons (no pun intended, Mr. Icono Clast) or the Prussian - since if the first Aus icon I used was less than perfect then the pruss is of the same order or Kingdom of Sardinia, Saxony which I think is post 1815. Still, I kind of like the idea of at least moving towards Imperial Russia, maybe the old Hammer and Sickle of the USSR - its closer in time than the Putin flag...Tttom1 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Russian flags are possibly an even bigger mess than the Austrian ones, in large part due to the lack of a universally-used flag there. The longest-term ones would be the naval ensign and variations of the tzar's personal flag. The modern tricolor was (as appears to be the case with Austria) the merchant marine ensign prior to the late 19th century, and so can't be used as a national flag before that period. Kirill 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I say we use

for all post-1804, establishment of the Austrian Empire and just no flag for before that for when there was great confusion over whether we're referring to Austria or the Holy Roman Empire. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is only with the editors, not history.Tttom1 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

OK, I've made this flag: Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png which can be a candidate to replace the current flag being used on the infoboxes, which IMHO is immensly ugly and unpleasant to the eye. (Compared to other rather simplistic flags, it really stands out). The quicker this is done, the better. Centy – reply• contribs – 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've just tried it out in a sandbox...at 22px which is the standard size of a flag, it looks the Russian Imperial Standard. Grrr.. Centy – reply• contribs – 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job, very nice flag and should be fine for anytime from 1630-1867 as the HRE flag is the one universally used with very minor variants for that period. The Russian Imperial Standard would be much the same - it could however follow this pattern: http://www.warflag.com/napflags/flaghtml/ru1803_3.htm or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Izmailovsky_flag-14.jpg an orange field with one wing raised at least for the Nap. period.Tttom1 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's work to get Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png included in Template:Country data Holy Roman Empire and then replace Image:GR 134 crop.jpg with this. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, here's a great new replacement from FotW for the 1438-1630 flag: Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.gif. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And...I've found a nice version of the Russian double-headed eagle Imperial standard although the source is rather funny: Image:Bandera Imperio Ruso (AOEIII).PNG. Problem is that 22px, it looks a lot like the Austrian one. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Russia and HRE use the double headed imperial eagle that descends from the the Roman/Byzantine Empire the difference on the Russian is the red shield with St, George & Dragon in white and, on occasion, the pose of the eagle. Judging from known flags of Russian Regts it could be on an orange or white field. see: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=280540&imageID=439041&parent_id=280512&word=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=12&imgs=12&total=38&pos=14&snum= and: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=280725&imageID=439097&parent_id=280598&word=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=0&imgs=12&total=26&pos=4&snum= I think that the new HRE icon you found is fine, but I believe it is a mistake to use the bi-color for the Austrian Empire in 1804 as the Hapsburgs still called themselves Emperors and used the Imperial Standard. Its highly unlikely they used that bi-color at Austerlitz, or even prior to 1848. The links I gave above show the Imperial Standard in use until the 1870's at least. The bi-color has its roots in a medieval banner see: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126243&imageID=89691&word=flags&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=269277&lField=10&sScope=Source&sLevel=&sLabel=The%2520Vinkhuijzen%2520collection%2520of%2520military%2520uniforms&num=36&imgs=12&total=82&pos=48

(note imperial eagle on tunics) and the red and white tricolor of austria-hungary has its roots in: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126245&imageID=89693&word=flags&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=269277&lField=10&sScope=Source&sLevel=&sLabel=The%2520Vinkhuijzen%2520collection%2520of%2520military%2520uniforms&num=60&imgs=12&total=82&pos=66

However, these flags don't represent the HRE or Austrian Empire.Tttom1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian Imperial something like this: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=280829&imageID=439149&parent_id=280599&word=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=24&imgs=12&total=30&pos=29&snum= Tttom1 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to the unit & base naming convention

I've recently combined the style guide's sections on unit and base naming, since they were essentially copies with some terms substituted out; hopefully, the combined presentation makes the scope of the common convention a bit clearer.

I'd like to propose a small (in my opinion, anyways) change to the guideline, to account for the case (particularly with long-defunct units) where historians have adopted a common name that differs from the "official" name used by the unit during its existence. The guideline as currently worded suggests the common historical name as an alternative only where a formal name doesn't exist at all; I propose changing this to include cases where the formal name is deprecated by historians in favor of an alternative common name. In terms of precise text, I'd suggest changing

The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs, or, for units or bases that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.

to

The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.

Would there be any objections to this? Or any other comments? Kirill 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem with me. I originally wrote the base section, because I felt that was an area of concern that wasn't covered in the original version of the style guide. I copied the unit name section because I felt that was the most appropriate way of doing it -- this seems to be even better. It's simpler and there's less room for confusion. I fully support it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks very sensible. However, could you please provide some examples of where there's a difference between the formal name and the name commonly used by historians to illustrate your point? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are simple examples where a full formal name has been shortened in common usage; for example, the Yeomen Warders are almost never referred to as the "Yeomen Warders of Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress the Tower of London". Another, slightly more subtle example—and the reason why the issue came up—is discussed at WT:USMIL#Civil War Regiments Naming Convention; modern historians have adopted a convention for ACW regiment names that doesn't exactly match the official names the regiments were created with. Kirill 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(Are such examples worth mentioning in the guideline itself?) Kirill 13:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally brought up this issue and simple wanted to find some uniformity if a concensus could be reached. Also remember, many of these units, particularly of the American Civil War, are long forgotten by most but on Wikipedia, so there might not be a "common" name. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, are there any objections at this point? Kirill 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I've gone ahead and changed the guideline. Further comments are, of course, entirely welcome. Kirill 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ID this gun?

Same gun as on left, based on gun and background (matching marble pattern).

I found this at Les Invalides in Paris. No one at the Misc. Reference desk was able to identify it definitively, so I'm wondering if someone here might have a clue. It's not a mitrailleuse or Billinghurst Requa Battery (not enough barrels and is on a swivel). Someone suggested organ gun but that description doesn't seem to fit. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll guess a Nordenfelt or Maxim-Nordenfelt (or is it spelled Nordenfeldt?) http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/nrdenfld.html htom (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This has 10 barrels, BTW. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn. It looks a hell of a lot like descriptions I've read of a Chevalier et Grenier mitrailleuse (not the standard cannon-shaped mitrailleuse), but that weapon had two "decks" of barrels. That being said, it did have 10 barrels, which yours appears to have as well. I was at Les Invalides a few years ago, but don't remember seeing this. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nordenfelts were made with up to twelve barrels ( here's a ten-barrel: http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/24482 ) htom (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a pic from the front but will have to get home to take a look at it. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pic added. There looks like a lever of some kind on the right side of the gun. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah, IDing images is a giant task. I know I have uploaded hundreds of things to commons where my best description was 'a gun 27' or 'a gun next to another gun' :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I could kick myself now for not also photographing the caption cards which were likely nearby because as anyone who has been to Les Invalides knows, there are dozens and dozens of artillery pieces around one of the courtyards, and no 2 look alike. However I didn't have much time (~3 hours or so) when I visited because I had to meet up with a tour in Paris at 6, so I basically rushed through the medieval section and focused on WW II and the Napoleonic sections more. Next time I'll go back for the whole day. ;) --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to ask someone in Paris to ID the thing? I know its fun to have a guess, but I become frustrated :\--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I try to photo captions. Sometimes they get fuzzy. And too often things don't have them... I remember recently taking a series of portrait photos - but who is on them is anybody's guess... sigh :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Rama, who took the picture on the right, his titles, let alone descriptions of the items he photographed at Les Invalides are hardly descriptive at all and leave the viewer guessing as to what exactly the objects are beyond their own generalizations. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, my first instinct was that it looked like some form of single bank mitrailleuse. Especially given the carriage (which looks like it could be from any time from the late 1700s to 1800s IMO). I may have to pop back to Les Invalides now just to spot this. Narson (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's located on a balcony behind the large black statue of Napoleon that overlooks what I believe IIRC is the first courtyard of the Musee de l'armee if you enter from the south side. The Renault FT-17 light tank should be at the foot of the stairway you would climb to access this balcony. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When someone goes there, also look for a description of the statue so it can be added to the image description. For that matter, has someone located the facility's office where records of all those items are kept? Maybe this place doesn't use public labels, but there should be a history or records officer keeping track of the item catalog. Incidentally, someone planning to visit such an office/person might want to print the first page of the Commons category for the place (and the Army Museum?) and invite the person to define an account and append descriptive information to the image descriptions pages. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Riots - within scope of the project or not?

Ex. May Day Riots of 1894. No indication that military was brought in, which would make it cleary our concern. So... part of MILHIST or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Something like the Detroit, Michigan US riots of 1967, where, after police, and National Guard under state control, where a brigade of the 82nd Airborne eventually came in, would, I'd imagine, clearly be in scope.

Where it gets tricky is where police use miltary equipment and tactics, and even more so, when a force, such as the National Guard is in the US, can either be under federal or state control. The Guard, to a reasonable extent, is theoretically going to use the same equipment and tactics as the Army, but, in this incident, they didn't -- in terms of discipline. For example, there was at least one incident, and reportedly many more, when the Guard took "sniper fire" from a multiple unit apartment building, they'd respond with sustained fire from a quad .50 HMG mount, tearing the brick apart.

Army doctrine, at the time, was two-pronged: put a ground perimeter around the building, then start on the roof, preferably with a heliborne force. Stairways would be systematically cleared and secured, and then they swept the building from top to bottom. They were in radio contact with the command outside, and could call on properly trained snipers, tear gas, etc., if necessary. Rather quickly, the paratroopers got the situation under control with more weapons/prisoners captured, less ammunition expended, and fewer casualties than had been taken up to that point.

So, the idea of military techniques in riots, when used by police, I'd call in-scope. To the extent that the military adopts less-lethal techniques for urban combat, it's in scope. For routine police control, it's probably a matter for a law enforcement project.

I'm not faulting the lower-level force from the Michigan Guard. They were simply not at the same level of training and discipline, which was something worked on later -- remember, this was during the Vietnam war. Personally, I was doing news reporting at the largest demonstration at the Pentagon in October 1967, and the Army MPs were more effective than the paratrooper reaction force -- but there were two times that reaction force was needed, and you could see the difference when they committed. On one occasion, I discovered one could try valiantly to dig into a concrete floor with one's fingernails, and, on the other, while I was acting quite properly within the scope of my military credentials, annoyed a couple of sergeants. Younger and more conditioned at the time, when one tried to block me with a rifle, I reflexively took it away from him.

It is not a comfortable feeling to realize, in the middle of a unit with recent combat experience, that you have just taken a rifle away from a senior NCO. I did the only thing that probably saved my life -- snapped into the rifle inspector's position, yelled "Filthy", threw it back at him, and ran like hell. He reflexively caught it in the prescribed manner, and I was gone by them. :-< Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun Bin

I'd like to ask that people take a look at the RfC on Talk:Sun Bin with regard to whether two alleged alternative names for him are properly includable in the article and, if so, whether they should be in the lead paragraph. --Nlu (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Is there a Military History trivia page? For example, what did former US President Clinton and Hitler had in common? :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Members by Kirill 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Euhm they both had 2 legs.... But no kidding, indeed I hope there is no such trivia page. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OH OH I know, they both have the letter "i" in their name. BonesBrigade 02:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you lot guessing until next year :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Both had mistresses?? BonesBrigade 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are warm even if you don't know it :0), mistresses are not quite what I had in mind since this is military trivia, but its almost half the answer. This trivia is only possible because an article in Wikipedia is incomplete--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Assess Top Twenty

Here's the Top Twenty as of 1800 hrs GMT 23 December 2007.

Bedford — 7,180
TomStar81 — 5,140
Parsival74 — 5,000
FayssalF — 3,500
Roger Davies — 2,600
Kateshortforbob — 2250
Cromdog — 2,200
Ouro — 2020
BrokenSphere — 2000
Jacksinterweb — 2,000
Maralia — 2,000
MBK004 — 1,325
JKBrooks85 — 1,250
Sniperz11 — 1100
Blnguyen — 1000
Burzmali — 1000
Raoulduke47 — 1000
TicketMan — 1000
Welsh — 1000
Cplakidas — 890

There's just over one week left to go. So if you haven't signed up yet, please do so and tag at least some! Happy holidays, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This'll teach me to get into good habits and tag articles when I create them.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On this day?

Is there an On this day in military history place?
e.g. 24 December 2007 this day in 1790, marked the taking of Turkish fortress Izmail by the Russian troops under the command A.V.Suvorov.--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:War/Selected anniversaries. :-) Kirill 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To you all

A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia now open

The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how this is called?

From pl:Hulajgród and uk:Гуляй-город: a type of siege machine used by Cossack and Russian forces around 16th and 17th century. It was a type of siege tower, on wheels or on a skid. Used during sieges of towns or encampments, carried troops and artillery, were pulled by people or animals. Onestly I don't see a reason why this should be merged to siege tower articles on respective wikis, but maybe there is something I am missing (the above is from the pl article, I don't read Ukrainian)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at the Hellenistic siege towers, for example the Helepolis. It was used as a protective building for artillery that shot at the besieged and from the top levels small arms fired at single enemy soldiers. I don't understand Polish or Ukrainian, but your description sounds like an emulation of this Hellenistic tactic with gunpowder weapons. One advantage of such a building could be that it is possible to fire at close range on specific points of a fortification and thus breach the walls. The difference to the Greek version is that they didn't have such an excess of firepower and fired only on the defences at the top of the wall. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WWII Radar

Does anyone know where I can find information on the type of radars used by naval ships during WWII? I am looking for both navigational and gunnery radar information, however I have heard from reliable source that much of the latter is still classified, so I would settle for information on the former if at all possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

World War II German War Brides

My grandmother, Anne Marie Lauenstein (fomerly Anne Marie Heinke) was the very first German war bride to ever come to the United States. I can ask her lots of questions about how she came over here. She has had numerous articles written about her in papers from 1945 or so.

She says that she and my grandfather have recorded the entire story on tape a long time ago and she will let me borrow it to hear it.

Anyone else that can find other information about her on the Internet would be greatly appreciated. Discuss it here (or on my talk page) if you can find any information, especially the old newspapers. There is an essay on the Internet somewhere that cites the paper as a source...you might be able to find it if you type in "First German War Bride" in quotes on Google.

I'll be contributing greatly to the war bride article soon!

--Xernous (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great story! And what a wonderful piece of history--something good to come out of all that suffering. Your grandmother telling the story will greatly enrich your narrative, but remember you'll need those articles to quote--otherwise it would count as "original research". These look like a good start for the curious

http://www.tayamo.com/OralHistory/SecondarySources/Esser_WomensHistoryReview.pdf
http://old.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=80&story_id=24941 —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Marking disambiguation pages

Just to let everyone know, {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages. As part of converting to its use, a bunch of disambiguation pages tagged with other classes have wound up being marked as unassessed; if you spot one of them, please apply this new tag. Thanks! Kirill 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)