Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Barrage (artillery)

Barrage (artillery)

I've been working on this page for a couple of months and I've taken it about as far as I can without advice or assistance. Last review went backwards from B-class to Start-class, but I think it's improved a lot since then. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Land

Looks good to me. I've upped it to a B. The main comments I'd make at this stage are about structure. The article could use a longer lead section (3 or 4 paragraphs) with a potted summary of the history and a bit of info about the use and misuse of the term. (See WP:LEAD for more info). I think the structure needs to choose more between a chronological framework and a thematic one, or one then the other. As it stands the first section (Development of the creeping barrage) is the start of a chronological approach, and then you get the analysis of different types (Would it be better to integrate the material on standing, box and creeping barrage variants? Perhaps discussing the advantages/disadvantages of each in turn rather than a section on this specifically?), and then you return to a chronological presentation (World War I, World War II, Korea).

Is it worth talking a bit more about the barrage versus other applications of firepower (artillery or not?) - and hence the role of the barrage in doctrine?

Congratulations on a very detailed article!

Have you seen [1]? Regards, The Land (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've ordered that book, along with [2] which I used in writing the article. Mind, the Bidwell book I did have on my shelves (Artillery Tactics, Almark) is pretty superficial, compared to the Hogg book. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have just re-read 'Fire-Power' - I think it is worth making a few more points in the article...

1. Stressing the difference between barrage as a form of suppression vs long preparatory bombardment
2. mentioning the debilitating effect of the barrage on infantry tactics - walking forward under a barrage hindered the development of infantry small-unit fire tactics
3. perhaps referring to the barrage as an anti-aircraft technique

Regards, The Land 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Carre

I'm glad The Land reclassed this to B - I couldn't see any reason for it to drop back to Start at all. I found it a very interesting read, and certainly learnt a lot from it. I've been going through it in the past couple of days sorting out some MOS issues, and I know I haven't fixed them all; therefore, I'd suggest you visit WP:MOS, and familiarise yourself with the various conventions there. Of course, MOS is only house policy in wikipedia, and doesn't touch on content.

I think the article could do with a copyedit, since I got slightly confused in some sections – it's easy to miss simple things out when you're conversant with a subject, which would be useful, indeed sometimes needed, for a layman. Some of the barrage usages in the various wars aren't clear about who's attacking whom. For the First and Second World Wars, there isn't much about how the Germans/Axis used barrage tactics - there is some in the First (eastern front), but not much else.

I agree with The Land about the confusion in structure; while describing the various barrage forms, you refer to the wars...but then you go into a chronological account. How best to address this is a difficult question. I think, since this article is about the barrage, it would be best to explain all the forms, with some examples of where/when they were used, rather than going for chronological. For example, introducing the pepper-pot barrage in the middle of the Second World War is a tad disconcerting!

All in all though, this article shows much promise, and now I have to go and check all my articles to make sure I haven't used the term "barrage" incorrectly! Carre (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit]Actually, looking at the history, the drop back to start was justified for referencing reasons, but much improved now. Carre (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

1. Promising article with huge potential and very little to add to The Land's and Carre's comments.
2. A bit more on the history might be useful (Boer War, allegedly).
3. The role of the recoilless field gun (which facilitated rapid synchronised fire)
4. You describe a Chinese barrage but don't name it :)
5. Separate section on directing fire and its development from Wii, WWII and today? (Flash-spotting, sound-ranging, aerial observation, reconnaissance etc etc
6. Modern uses. Coordinated aircraft / missile / naval gun attacks. Role partially performed differently today.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard Berkowitz

Apropos of fire direction for counterbattery, I have linked sections in three articles on MASINT. Start with Geophysical MASINT#Counterbattery and Countersniper Location and Ranging, then follow links to the relevant sections of Electro-optical MASINT#Tactical Counterartillery Sensors and Radar MASINT#Counterartillery Radar. "Counterfeedback" on the MASINT is very welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)