Talk:Military technology
 | 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  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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
edit
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Addition To Military technology Request
editHistoricize
editThis 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I am going to be bold and start on a structure for the History section.SovalValtos (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Gasp
editI facepalmed when I saw the state of the article when it became a WP:TAFI. Britannica has over 20,000 words on the subject and we got nothing. Time to fix that, don't ya think? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Breadth or scope of coverage
editHow 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)
- 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)
- I believe the tech should be the focus, not methodology. For instance, Optics may be included as military tech but not methods used in imagery intelligence and military satellite imagery analysis. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Removal
editA 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)
Missing info on drones
editWhy 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:
Around September, news outlets report about deployment, research and development of novel military drone technology in the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, including demining drones,[1] self-repurposed commercial/hobby drones[2][3] (including via a hackathon),[4][better source needed][5] reconnaissance microdrones,[6] kamikaze drones, bomb-dropping modified drones,[7] and countermeasures such as electronic ones.[6][3][8][9]
This may also be relevant:
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.
Moreover, while there is content in Unmanned combat aerial vehicle#Counter drone tactics, there is none in Loitering munition#Countermeasures.
Some of that may also be missing at List of military inventions and History of weapons.
References
- ^ Osborne, Margaret. "A Ukrainian Teenager Invents a Drone That Can Detect Land Mines". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ Kramer, Andrew E.; Guttenfelder, David (10 August 2022). "From the Workshop to the War: Creative Use of Drones Lifts Ukraine". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ a b Fogel, Benjamin (22 August 2022). "Will the Drone War Come Home? Ukraine and the Weaponization of Commercial Drones". Modern War Institute. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ "Drone Hackathon was launched to develop new solutions in the field of military technology. - Div Bracket". Divbracket.com. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ "New technological solutions for the army: the Ministry of Digital Transformation has launched a Drone Hackathon in military-tech sector". Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ a b Koizumi, Yu (26 September 2022). "Does the conflict in Ukraine represent a 'new war'?". The Japan Times.
- ^ Axe, David. "Ukraine's $10,000 Drones Are Dropping Tiny Bombs On Russian Troops". Forbes. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ South, Todd (21 September 2022). "Use us for combat zone tests, Ukraine minister tells US war industry". Military Times. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ "How the Ukraine drone war is changing the game on the battlefield". New Atlas. 23 September 2022. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ 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. S2CID 248723656.
- ^ 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.
Nitroglycerin
editThe 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)