This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 November 2014 for a period of one week.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Leeh17.
This article lacks any pre-20th century military technology. For instance, it doesn't mention horses or ditches.
Hyacinth (
talk) 01:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Scope limitations? Should the application of the word ″technology" be limited to modern context or expanded? Of course, allowing the expanded view could make this task enormously difficult. What if we start with modern technology and work our way back?
Ray Wyman Jr (
talk) 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Eras could be a way to divide. Stone age, bronze age, iron age, gunpowder, combustion engine, radio wave, nuclear, IT, or whatever divisions make consensus.
SovalValtos (
talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Agreed. And the modern "era" could be divided into subheads: radio, nuclear, IT (Cyber), space, electronic countermeasures (stealth)
Ray Wyman Jr (
talk) 06:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I am going to be bold and start on a structure for the History section.
SovalValtos (
talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
More is not better on its own, though I agree more is needed for this page. We will have to do some careful editing so as not to duplicate material which already has its own pages. A stand back overview might be the way forward?
SovalValtos (
talk) 18:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Correct, but remember - general topics do refer and borrow material from other broad or specific topics as necessary. It would be impossible to construct an article on a broad subject if you cannot cite specifics or refer to the technology itself. I wonder if it is better to go with a definition standpoint and cover the eras and break it down by technology type...
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 06:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Agreed specifics and the technologies themselves must be allowed their place. A comparison with the
Technology page is helpful. What is the point of the article other than taxing the focus of its editors!?
SovalValtos (
talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Overlapping or broad concepts are not meant to tax the editors with a burden, but are representative of a concept that is very broad and difficult to properly assess. It is far easier to work within a very limited structure or focus than it is to represent the whole. This comes as a matter of broad-based knowledge is very different than the specific. The former structure was to be an index to more specific military technology than be an article on the development and use of that technology itself.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Breadth or scope of coverage
How narrow a definition should be used? Should information technology as applied to military use be included; should intelligence and deception?
SovalValtos (
talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Anything developed for military use qualifies as military technology even if it later adapts to civilian use.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
A while back, a large part of the article was
removed for unexplained reasons. It might be a good idea to put it back. --
Ypnypn (
talk) 21:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Missing info on drones
Why is are drones not at least mentioned in the article? I think they, incl anti-drone systems, should probably also be included in the section "#Future technology". Featured this in
2022 in science:
A study challenges the notion that drones "tilt the military balance in favor of the offense, [and] reduce existing asymmetries in military power between major and minor actors", suggesting that they are "vulnerable to air defenses and
electronic warfare systems, and that they require support from other force structure assets to be effective".[10][11]
Laser weapons (incl anti-drone ones) are also not wikilinked.
^Calcara, Antonio; Gilli, Andrea; Gilli, Mauro; Marchetti, Raffaele; Zaccagnini, Ivan (1 April 2022). "Why Drones Have Not Revolutionized War: The Enduring Hider-Finder Competition in Air Warfare". International Security. 46 (4): 130–171.
doi:
10.1162/isec_a_00431.
S2CID248723656.
^Neidorfler, Micah (15 July 2022).
"Stop saying war has changed". The Hill. Retrieved 25 September 2022. Academic study of drone use in these conflicts demonstrates that, like any weapon, drones are effective when an opponent is not prepared or does not possess the technical capability to counter them. Even when effective, they do not replace conventional ground combat, and when an opponent is prepared, drones simply become another average tool in the box of combined arms.
The Anglo-mysorean wars were in the 18th century. Nitroglycerin wasn't invented until 1847 and not produced until the 1860s
Humpster (
talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply