Rating and suggestions for improvement[edit]

I have assessed this article for the military history project and believe that it is still a Start class article. Please note that the project does not use a C-class rating, hence it is either a Start or a B. I believe that the article does not cover the topic broadly enough (criteria 2) and does not have any supporting materials (criteria 5) to be a B, although you having clearly put a bit of effort into it.

I feel that the following improvements could be made:

Having said all this, I think that you have made a good start on a very broad topic. Keep up the good work. If you would like some more detailed comments, please consider adding the article to the peer review list. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR and following the instructions there. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What infobox should I use? mynameinc 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, mate. Not sure about this one. I'm not really a guru on infoboxs and the like. I will have a hunt around and see if there is a template or something like that, but for the time being I'd try to find some pictures to put in to it. Take a look at some of the related wikipedia pages, they might have some images that you can use. Also, the Commons site might also: [1]. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've had a bit of a look at the military infobox templates available at [2]. I'd suggest probably either using the National Military infobox, or the Military Unit infobox (you would need to tweak slightly to make it work though). Not sure if this helps at all. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked this question on the WWI task force talk, but should I go into depth on each battle, as I have been, or just on the campaigns and give a very brief summary on each battle? I feel inclined towards the latter. mynameinc 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go with a brief summary of the main campaigns and battles, as the article will be huge otherwise. But that is just my take, but others may have a different view. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that there's any suitable infobox for this kind of article, though the military unit one is sort-of relevant. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re the multitude of battles, since this article is aboutthe reorgnization of the French army during the war, I'd only deal with the battles that contributed to the French Army's 'modernization' during the war itself. You could include an infobox of all the battles, for someone's easy of navigation, but I'd argue that all of the battles don't need to be covered: rather, bring in those battles that are useful to the topic: the development of the French Army DURING WWI and how different situations contributed to reorganization, weaponry modification, restructuring (different than reorganization). Where there tactical changes? Operational Changes? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, this article is only about the organization of the French Army? mynameincOttoman project 20:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that is what you said in your opening paragraph. during the course of the war, the war itself caused changes in the French military "The French Army was heavily involved in the fighting and as a result experienced considerable changes in structure, composition and equipment." I took this to be your topic sentence. .... in other words, they were responding to the situation). did you want to write something different? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Causality[edit]

Here should be a section of causality in WW1 that French Army suffered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.255.205 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Covered battles[edit]

Western Front

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

Copyediting[edit]

Have made a start on copyediting, still quite a way to go, it's taking longer than I had planned! Also, I'd like User:AustralianRupert's opinion on the Background paragraph. Combing through it, it's just a "Why WWI happened" which is why I added the link to Causes of World War I. This section could be compressed into two or three summary paragraphs, but I don't know how that sits with the review above. I'll carry on tomorrow. Bigger digger (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you many times over for fixing my many grammatical mistakes. I will help as much as possible. Thanks, mynameincOttoman project 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, mate. I'd suggest that the Background section possibly needs to look more specifically at the background of the French Army prior to World War I, while briefly touching upon the causes of the war (as this is, as you say, dealt with in the other article). For example perhaps the section could look at the French Army's development, doctrine, organisation, etc, prior to the war. Not sure if this helps at all. Sorry, I'm not an expert on this topic. A peer review might help (WP:MHPR). —

AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, broski. I like your idea for the Background section, and will change it to confirm with your proposal. mynameincOttoman project 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting....redux[edit]

I initially was interested in copy editing here, but this article isn't ready yet, although it is a good start on an important subject. There are too many significant problems with its content to go into copy editing phase yet. Article as is:

France had been the major power in Europe for centuries, with emperors Napoleon I and Napoleon III trying to dominate Europe.[1] The loss of Alsace and Lorraine to Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 left the French seething and ended their preeminence in Europe, making the recapture of lost territory a major goal of the French.[1][2] After the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started a system of alliances designed to hold dominance over Europe, but was challenged by France.[3] In turn, Bismarck attempted to isolate France diplomatically by befriending Austria–Hungary, Russia, Britain, and Italy.[3]


Possible revision:

France had been the major power in Europe for most of the Early Modern Era: Louis XIV, in the seventeenth century, and Napoleon I in the nineteenth, had extended French power over most of Europe through skillful diplomacy and military prowess.[1] Through the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 confirmed France as a European power broker. By the early 1850s, Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started a system of alliances designed to assert Prussian dominance over Central Europe.[3] Bismarck's diplomatic maneuvering, and France's maladroit responses to such crises as the Ems Dispatch and the Hohenzollern Candidature let to the French declaration of war in 1870. France's subsequent defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, including the loss of its army and the capture of its emperor at Sedan, the loss of territory, and the payment of heavy indemnities, left the French seething and placed the reacquisition of lost territory as a primary goal at the end of the 19th century;[1] the defeat also ended French preeminence in Europe.[2] Following German Unification, Bismarck attempted to isolate France diplomatically by befriending Austria–Hungary, Russia, Britain, and Italy.[3]

This is just an example: the problems continue throughout the article. I agree that you need a copy editor, but your content should be more or less in line to start with.

That said, however, carry on! Be careful, however, with your statements. For example, "With the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, Bismarck attempted to isolate France..." sounds like the Germans lost Alsace and Lorraine, not the French. These are content issues, and some copy editors will not notice or know that you've got the facts reversed.

This article should also eventually be linked to the other material on the French military, from their pages, not just your article to those articles, but back again. Send me a bing when you're ready, if you'd like. Glad to help! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic is massive, it's actually a hard article to write. mynameincOttoman project 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, which is why I suggested (above, in the first section) that you only deal with battles or situations that directly touch on the topic: the changes in operational, strategic, and tactical approaches in the War.

1. Background 2. Operational changes 

    what operational changes occurred?  When? Why? Who?

3. Strategic changes 

     what kinds of strategic changes occurred?  Which ones did the French initiate, which were forced upon them by other decisions, such as German decisions, etc.

4. Tactical changes: 

     what changes in weaponry and transportation, the sophistication of Trench warfare, etc.

5. how did all these interact? 6. In the end, did the French seem to have learned anything? 

   What does Keegan say about all this? Howard?

Be careful not to sound too anti-German. There is no consensus on the cause of the war, and your article is not about that anyway.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further thoughts[edit]

Here is a possible revised opening paragraph:

During World War I, France was one of the Triple Entente powers allied against the Central Powers. Although fighting occurred world-wide, the bulk of fighting in Europe occurred in the Lowlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France,along what came to be known as the Western Front. Specific operational, tactical, and strategic decisions by the high commands on both sides of the conflict led to shifts in organizational capacity, as the French army tried to respond to day-to-day fighting and long-term strategic and operational agendas. In particular, x problems caused the French high command to re-evaluate standard procedures, and revised command structures, re-equip the army, and develop different tactical approaches to fighting. This article deals with the first of these problems.

--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added. mynameincOttoman project 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


okay, but you needed to do a bit of work...for example, I had inserted "x" before problems because I really don't know how many problems there were. You need to really organize this, and give "x" a value. Your chapters on organization then "fit" into this "topic" of the larger subject, but there is more work to do on the battles. For example, what did these specific battles contribute to how the army was operationally reorganized? How did specific battles reflect the change in strategic principles that governed military operations? What role did the new weaponry play in this? Which battles reflected "old" methods, and which ones showed that the army had responded to changing strategies of the Germans, for example; which other ones showed them responding to British shifts in operations and tactics? I guess a big question I have is, do you know the difference between operations, strategy, and tactics?--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Copyedit - Part III[edit]

I notice that in the Joffre photo, all his medals are on the right. Either the picture is the wrong way round, or he had some very strange ideas when it came to decorations. I would fix it myself but I don't know how.

In the 'Equipment' section it states: 'average range of a rifle throughout WW I was 1400m but most were only accurate to 600m'. Is this right? 1400m sounds rather ambitious, never mind as an average range. RASAM (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citation provided certainly says 1,400m as an average range, with 600 m for accuracy. The book I have here with me gives only the 'effective range', which I interpret from my own experience as meaning the distance from which a firer can consistently hit within an area of one metre (that is, at least, the definition of 'effective fire' in the Australian Army). My source states that the Lebel M1886 had an effective range of 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) (3250ft), while the Artillery Musketoon Mle 1892 (another French rifle) had an effective range of 500 metres (550 yd) (1640ft) and the Berthier 1907 an effective range of 1000m (3250ft). The German Mauser Gewehr 98 (produced 1898-1918) had an effective range of 1000m (3250ft), as did the Mauser Kar 98 and the British Lee Enfield Mk II and Mk III. The Belgian Infantry Rifle Model 1889 also had an effective range of 1000m (3250ft), as did the American Springfield 1903, the Enfield M1917, and the Russian Mosin-Nagant. That is at least according to Chris McNab in Twentieth-Century Small Arms (2001).
This leads me to believe that the info might be a little incorrect, however, it might be a difference in terminology that is being used (i.e. are the terms 'accurate' and 'effective range' the same, or are they different). As above effective range might only mean consistently able to land rounds within one metre of the aiming mark, while accurate might mean that the average soldier can achieve a grouping of say 200 millimetres (7.9 in) at 100 metres (110 yd). LIkewise, does the term 'range' simply just mean the exact distance of how far the round will fly before it hits the ground, or is it the distance at which it is still effective, i.e, for want of a less ugly term, capable of injuring someone.
Sorry, if this has made the situation even more confusing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the British army, (yes, I am a Pom), we were always taught that the maximum effective range of the L1A1 SLR was 300m as an individual weapon and 600m when considered as part of a section; so maybe there is something in your 'differences in terminlogy'. 'Range' could mean the furthest that 'the round will fly before it hits the ground', but it should not be forgotten that machinegunners from that era and indeed today, would be expected to engage targets at and beyond the distances mentioned in the article - with rifle calibre ammunition. Incidentially, it sounds like both the Australian and British armies have very similar doctrines - judging by your statement about group sizes - when it comes to training with Small Arms. RASAM (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, as an army we try to learn from the best. Having said that, for some reason Kitchener recommended that when we set up the Royal Military College, Duntroon that it not be modelled on Sandhurst, but rather West Point...;-) That comment was sort of tongue in cheek on my part, but I have always considered the Brits the best at training in small arms, since the ability of British riflemen to fire more rounds in a minute than anyone else pretty much kept the Empire together for a couple of hundred years until the proliferation of weapons with higher rates of fire were introduced. And even then, some of the accounts from the First World War indicate that the Germans thought they were up against machine guns, when they were only facing SMLEs. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the "rate of fire made rifles sound like machine guns" story chiefly concerns the British Expedionary Force (BEF) of 1914. In other words, like the Angel of Mons story, it was told only in the first few months of WWI.

Incidentally, some years ago, at Bisley ranges in the UK, I participated in a National Rifle Association (NRA) match, rather aptly called the 'Mad Minute'. Using a borrowed SMLE, made in 1942 in Australia, with, I think ammunition from Greece, (don't ask!), I had to fire as many rounds as possible in 60 seconds at 200 yds at a 4 ft target. This included reloading, although one was allowed to have one's spare ammunition laying alongside in clips. Not that I needed much spare ammo, as the target had disappeared after my 11th shot. My score was nothing to write home about, either. A friend, the owner of the SMLE, used another example from his collection, and if memory serves, got off some 15 rounds and they were much better placed than mine. He is a right hander, I am not. You could see the advantage of right over left straight away. I bet the BEF did not have too many left handers in its ranks ! RASAM (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what you mean, some weapons are better employed right handed rather than left. I am myself left handed, however, I shoot a Steyr right handed as it is safer (in my opinion) due to its design (placement of the cocking handle, barrel release, etc. Having said that it might be operator error on my part, because I've met a number of soldiers who manage to employ the same system very successfully left handed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the L1A1 SLR, being left or right handed was not a problem, but when the British army adopted the SA 80, it created all sorts of difficulties. Along with its reliability, (or lack of it), i.e. bits falling off, other bits held on with sticky tape and elastic bands, there was also the "handed-ness" of the weapon. I well remember a Warrant Officer class 1 from the SASC (Small Arms School Corps), rather brusquely telling me that all soldiers, both experienced and new recruits, would be taught to shoot right handed; no exceptions. As soon as I picked one up as a lefthander, I could see why. Atempting to fire the thing lefthanded was likely to result in serious injury from (a) the (fixed) cocking handle whizzing backwards and forwards and (b) spent cases being ejected to the right, level with your face. I would be interested to know how the 'Diggers' fired the Steyr from the left shoulder. Anyway, I digress, I seem to remember that this article is meant to be about the French Army in World War I RASAM (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Steyr is still essentially a 'right handed' weapon, however, some slight modifications have been made to allow left handed firers to use it. The cocking handle remains on the left (that is configured for right handed firing), but the ejection port has been closed up on right and opened on the left, while a left handed bolt has been added (ejector pole moved) so that the spent case ejects away from the face). But as I said, it is still mainly a right handed weapon and a few left handers choose to shoot it right handed (like myself), although many left handers also choose to shoot it left handed (some with more success than others). — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estienne and French Tanks[edit]

Not a major issue, but I thought it fairer to point out that the French developed tanks independently of, and at roughly the same time as, the British. Estienne's forenames were Jean Baptiste Eugène, not Jean-Baptiste, and the Renault tank was the FT, not FT-17. Also, the sentence previously contained a "hanging participle," which I have corrected. Hope this helps.Hengistmate (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Weapons of War – Rifles". First World War.com. source[edit]

A large part of the equipment section is based on a very poor source:

Duffy, Michael (2002-07-28). "Weapons of War – Rifles". First World War.com. Retrieved 2009-05-07.

First of all, the Lebel did not have any issues whatsoever with the bullet tip detonating the primer. The case was far too tapered, and the primer was protected from it.

Second, the Berthier 07-15 and 16 rifles respectively held 3 and 5 rounds, not 5 and 6. Not a single Berthier with a 6 round capacity exists.

With such strange statement, I think much, if not the entire source should be disregarded and the text should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom430 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is an appallingly bad source. The bulk of the content of that site has been heavily plagiarised to create this article. I have translated the shorter content on the fr.wikipedia article about French infantry in WW1. Keith H99 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Army in World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong numbers of machine guns[edit]

Under Equippment, the article states:

"When war broke out in August 1914, the German Army had about 12.000 machine guns, while the British and French armies had a few hundred.[1]"

This statement is wrong. About german machine guns: in the book "Militärtechnik des Ersten Weltkriegs" by Wolfgang Fleischer, the author states that the number of german machine guns at the beginning of the war was 2.438 in the field army, and 2.064 in reserve. Fleischer also writes that in the rest of the year 1914 only an additional number of 1.000 was produced. 6.100 were produced in 1915, which was adequate, since at that time enough captured machine guns were in service, to compensare the losses. So the statement, that the british and french only had "a few hundred" is probably also wrong. The british and french army used a much larger number and variety of machine guns.

In the book "Sturmgewehr!" by Dieter Handrich, the author states that only 1.236 Machine guns were in active service at the outset of the war, with about 4.000 in reserve. Handrich's book is highly renowned and full of very precise information.

Btw. the german wikipedia article about the MG 08 states that 4.919 were available at the outset of the war, while the polish and italian ones give the number of 12.000 as well.

I don't know where the number 12.000 came from; maybe someone confused WW1 with WW2, because the Wehrmacht had about 12.000 MG 08/15 in september 1939. The low number for french and british machine guns can be a misunderstanding; for example, Handrich also gives detailed statistics of how many machine guns were used by the german army in the first battle of the marne, and despite the high number available, only 120 were in frontline service in september 1914. Per kilometer only 2-5 machine guns were used, depending on the division; the 19th divison had most machine guns with 24, the fifth infantry divison the least with only 6.

I know this page is not about the german army, but the number clearly is wrong, and I just posted some additional information to show that my sources are very reliable.

2003:D1:B705:E201:A184:A1E4:2766:7C2A (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Duffy, Michael (2003-05-03). "Weapons of War: Machine Guns". First World War.com. Retrieved 2009-05-07.
It's scary that the older articles are sourced purely with whatever someone had self-published on the internet in 2003! It's just sat there, unquestioned, for years.
Standalone numbers are meaningless crap. It makes sense to state how many were issued per battalion, and how many battalions the combatants were fielding at that point in time. Keith H99 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michel Goya, on page 166 of his book, also refers to the French having 5000 machine guns in 1914 too, which is consistent with the french language article you quoted.Keith H99 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Gordon Corrigan confirms the British and Germans issued two machine guns per battalion, just like the French. That website is not a reliable source, clearly. Keith H99 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equipment[edit]

"The rifle ... remained the weapon of choice for snipers."

Musht be shome mishtake. Surely snipers prefer trench mortars, machine guns, heavy field artillery, or whatever.

To strip away my sarcasm, the point I am making is that I'm not aware of any weapon used by snipers other than the rifle. This sentence is therefore 100% redundant, and I plan to delete it. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German machine guns[edit]

Ok, I corrected this statement:


When war broke out in August 1914, the German Army had about 12,000 machine guns, while the British and French armies had a few hundred.


This is complete nonsense, the article about the MG 08 clearly states how many machine guns Germany had:


On 3 August 1914, soon after the outbreak of World War I, the Army had 4,411 MG 08s, along with 398 MG 01s, 18 MG 99s and two MG 09s.[9]


You will find a confirmation of these numbers in all serious publications about this topic. One I have handy is "Deutsche Maschinengewehre" by Frank Buchholz and Thomas Brüggen. [1]


I also doubt that the british and french had "only a few hundred". This article on Musee de l'armee[2] states, that the French army had an equal amount of machine guns:


En 1914, les régiments français et allemands sont dotés d’un nombre égal de mitrailleuses, à raison de 6 par régiment d’infanterie et 2 par régiment de cavalerie. Ceci représente un total de 5 000 exemplaires pour chaque armée. Cependant, il existe une divergence notoire dans la conception de leur emploi. Les Français qui misent sur le choc, le corps à corps, les disposent en deuxième ou troisième échelon. Les Allemands combinent feu et mouvement pour détruire l’adversaire et poussent, à cette fin, leurs mitrailleuses en première ligne. Dans les tranchées, les « nids » de mitrailleuses sont particulièrement redoutés par les soldats. La destruction des pièces adverses devient l’objectif prioritaire de l’artillerie avant l’assaut des fantassins

Translation:

In 1914, the French and German regiments were equipped with an equal number of machine guns, 6 per infantry regiment and 2 per cavalry regiment. This represents a total of 5,000 copies for each army. However, there is a noticeable divergence in the conception of their employment. The French who bet on shock, melee, have them in second or third echelon. The Germans combine fire and movement to destroy the adversary and push their machine guns to the front line to this end. In the trenches, machine gun "nests" are particularly feared by soldiers. The destruction of enemy pieces becomes the priority objective of the artillery before the infantry assault


I could not find anything about the British. But they were pioneers in the usage of machine guns.


If the article wants to compare machine gun-numbers, it should mention that not all German machine guns were used in the west. At the outset of the war the Russians had 4.157 Maxim- and 1.387 Madsen-machine guns. The Austro-Hungarian army had about 2700 machine guns. I am not sure about Belgium, but they definitely used 66 Hotchkiss Portative.

I don't know where this "12.000" number comes from.

I am not a wikipedia author and I don't want to bumble around with your articles. So please correct this mistake. It is just total misinformation.


EDIT:

Ok, my edit has been reverted as a "Good faith"-edit. This is not good faith. Above is somebody with a source and I have included a citation.

From "Deutsche Maschinengewehre" by Buchholz and Brüggen:

Page 43: Insgesamt ergibt dies für 1906 einen Bestand von: 30 MGs 98 (MG a/A), 109 MGs 99 und 318 MGs 01 (MG n/A)


Translation:

In total, this results in a stock of: 30 MGs 98 (MG a / A), 109 MGs 99 and 318 MGs 01 (MG n / A)


Page 185: Nach Aufstellungen von Goldsmith baute DWM von 1908 bis zum Kriegsausbruch 1914 etwa 1.700 Maschinengewehre 08. Im gleichen Zeitraum produzierte die staatliche Gewehrfabrik Spandau etwa 3.000 Maschinengewehre.

Translation:

According to Goldsmith's list, DWM built around 1,700 machine guns 08 from 1908 until the outbreak of war in 1914. In the same period, the state rifle factory in Spandau produced around 3,000 machine guns

So 5.157 MGs were produced overall, and some of the outdated ones like the MG 98 were probably sold scrapped.


Here is a second source: "Militärtechnik des Ersten Weltkrieges" by Wolfgang Fleischer[3]:

Page 28:

Zu Kriegsbeginn gab es im Deutschen Heer einen verhältnismäßig großen Vorrat an Maschinengewehren. Von den 4502 Stück waren 2438 beim Feldheer, 2064 standenn (einschließlich einer Gerätereserve von 465) in den Depots, bei den Ersatz- und Besatzungstruppen, eingeschlossen in den Festungen.

Translation:

At the beginning of the war there was a relatively large supply of machine guns in the German Army. Of the 4502 pieces, 2,438 were with the field army, 2064 (including a reserve of 465 equipment) were in the depots, with the replacement and occupation troops, locked in the fortresses

Another source is the Wikipedia-article about the MG 08.

I hope this is enough.

2003:D1:B70A:EC01:85EF:CBD4:1E0F:A664 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC) 2003:D1:B70A:EC01:85EF:CBD4:1E0F:A664 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Deutsche Maschinengewehre. ISBN 978-3-902526-96-0.
  2. ^ (PDF) https://www.musee-armee.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Support-Visite-Fiches-Objets/Fiches-1914-1918/MA_fiche-objet-mitrailleuse.pdf. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Fleischer, Wolfgang. Militärtechnik Des Ersten Weltkrieges. Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3613037068.

Plagiarism on a grand scale[edit]

It is incredible that the lion's share of the content on this old article has been plagiarised from one website about the First World War, namely

https://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm

As with a lot of old wiki articles, it is there in plain sight. It seems like nobody seems to have checked against the sources. Keith H99 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you elaborate? Like provide an exact webpage, instead of the home page? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keith H99: As Earwig shows that any copied content is limited to proper nouns, and it's been over two weeks since my request for clarification, I've removed the tag. I initially thought there was some close paraphrasing instead, but that part of the Wikipedia article predated the website. See: French Army in World War I - Wikipedia (9.Aug) and First World War.com - Battles - The First Battle of Albert, 1914 (22.Aug) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123 I was only made aware of your comment today. Let's look at Battle of the Frontiers
https://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/frontiers.htm
Duffy
The Battle of the Frontiers comprised five offensives launched under French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre and German Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke's initiative during the first month of the war, August 1914.
The battles - at Mulhouse, Lorraine, the Ardennes, Charleroi and Mons - were launched more or less simultaneously, and marked the collision of both French and German invasion plans (Plan XVII and the Schlieffen Plan, respectively), each battle impacting the course of others.
The article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_in_World_War_I#Battle_of_the_Frontiers
The Battle of the Frontiers consisted of five offensives, commanded and planned by French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre and German Chief-of-Staff Helmuth von Moltke. It was fought in August 1914.
These five offensives, Mulhouse, Lorraine, Ardennes, Charleroi, and Mons, were launched almost simultaneously. They were the result of the French Plan XVII and the German plans colliding.
The article is huge chunks of content from Duffy's website cobbled together. Keith H99 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keith H99: After a bit more digging, I believe you're right. I had initially thought the date at the bottom of the webpage was the creation date, but taking a look at archive.org shows the website was showing this content way back in 2001. Looks more like close paraphrasing, but it's still concerning how long this has stayed up, and the uncertain reliability of the website. Are you aware of any other articles that may also have this problem? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The base article, written by @Mynameinc (no longer active), pretty much exclusively cites this source, so it's going to be a pain to cleanup. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, unfortunately, when the article was created, it mirrored what was on Duffy's site.
I have come across two wiki articles just like this, about 15+ years old. For years, nobody has questioned what was created, back in those wild west days. For the two other articles I mentioned, they had to be rewritten, with recourse to a variety of reliable sources, rather than the wholesale plagiarising of another website. Keith H99 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's great that those two articles have been rewritten. I think the best course of action is to also rewrite this one, especially with better sources, but that's going to take awhile. A few parts may be fine, so those could be kept. Thoughts? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123 I heartily concur. Earlier this year I did start to transplant content from elsewhere, with sources, in order that the plagiarised content from the Duffy website was taken out, but it will take time. At some point in the future, this will be done, but until it is completed, the paraphrasing warning tag should stay there. Keith H99 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to get my hands on a few books, but I won't be able to make any substantive edits until around winter break. I'll make a post on the military history wikiproject to see if we can get a few other editors to help out. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the elements that require editing, they are:
Commanders in Chief  Done
Western Front
Battle of the Frontiers
Race to the Sea
Chemical weapons and gas  Done
A lot of the editing that was needed has already been done elsewhere in the article. Keith H99 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keith H99: I've rewritten the "Joseph Joffre" section of Commanders in Chief, using Paths of glory: the French Army 1914-18 as the source (thanks archive.org). A second set of eyes would be appreciated, so feel free to double check my work, and make sure the paraphrase is removed. I'm also not too clear about the exact date of his fall, so if you are able to clarify there, that would be great. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Keith H99 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategory of "Chemical weapons and gas" in the article has been edited. Keith H99 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks. I should be able to finish Commanders in Chief by the end of the day today. If you don't mind, I'm going to put a check next to your comment listing the sections for the completed ones. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commanders in Chief is completed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good idea, thanks for your hard work recently with this article. Keith H99 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had a go at tidying this up. The list of battles was not chronological, so I have tried to address that. I would say that the 1914 section is toxic, and plagiarism from the Duffy website needs to be addressed there. Keith H99 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARandomName123 in answer to your statement:
I'm guessing you mean "The Battle of the Frontiers: Ardennes 1914"
The article was a f***ing mess. Western Front covered 1914 to 1916, and then it started all over again with Battle of the Frontiers and other engagements from 1914 onwards. Given this lack of chronological order, it needed to be given year headers, and for the text to be moved so it fell under the correct year. The plagiarism issue is unresolved for 1914. Keith H99 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keith H99: I think you meant to ping @ActivelyDisinterested, who left that statement in their edit summary.
Thanks for cleaning some of it up; I'd lost interest in doing so, but I'll get back into it in the coming days. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea what the rest of this discussion is about, but someone added "Zuber 2002" as a short form reference to the article. As that is undefined it caused a no target error, see Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and the documentation for ((sfn)) templates. As "Zuber 2009" - 'The Battle of the Frontiers: Ardennes 1914' is defined in the article I assume this was either typo or a different print of the same work. If it's not a full cite will need to be provided, as ((sfn)) templates are only hyperlinks not valid references on their own.
No opinion on whatever else is going on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for tagging the wrong person, and misinterpreting. Keith H99 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text for 1914 is very bland and basic, providing an overview of battles that took place. There is no context as to the French involvement, generally. I have been able to make some tweaks, but you can't polish a turd, and a root-and-branch replacement of the generic guff that is in place for 1914 is what is called for. Keith H99 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The <<tarte>> headdress[edit]

The floppy beret appears to have been issued on a widespread basis from July 1915, in horizon blue, but to have fallen out of favour very quickly. There was chagrin on the part of the Chasseurs Alpins, Régiments d'Infanterie Alpins and mountain gunners, who wore a darker version, and considered the headdress to be their preserve. Continued use of this garment by des autres was limited to Indochinese, and to tankers of the Artillerie Spéciale. Keith H99 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories