Talk:French Army in World War I/Archive 1

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:

Done Add a background section. I have changed the title of the history section to organisation as that seems more appropriate. I believe that you should move some of the information from this section and put it in the Background section, in which you can discuss in a bit more detail how France came to be involved in the war. Be careful with stating that France was forced into the war, as there is a considerable body of opinion out there that many politicians in France were very eager for the war in order to avenge the loss of Alsace and Lorraine.
Expand the organisation section. It really only mentions 1914 and then 1918.
Done Discuss the mutinies that occured in the French Army.
Done Add some images, or an infobox or some tables if you can.
I have reworked the introduction, as I felt that some of the wording wasn't encyclopedic. However, if you wish to pursue a higher rating for this article (GA or higher) the introduction can be up to four paragraphs and should summarise the entire article.

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]

What infobox should I use? my name inc 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

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. my name inc 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

So, this article is only about the organization of the French Army? my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 20:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

Covered battles[edit]

Western Front[edit]

1914[edit]

Not done Battle of Liège
Done Battle of Mulhouse
Done Battle of Lorraine
Done Battle of the Ardennes
Done Battle of Charleroi
Not done Battle of Mons
Done Siege of Maubeuge
Done Battle of Le Cateau
Done Battle of St. Quentin, also called the Battle of Guise
Done First Battle of the Marne
Done First Battle of the Aisne
Not done Siege of Antwerp
Done First Battle of Albert
Done First Battle of Arras
Done Battle of the Yser
Done First Battle of Ypres
Done First Battle of Champagne

1915[edit]

Not done Battle of Neuve Chapelle
Done Second Battle of Ypres
Done Second Battle of Artois
Not done Battle of Loos
Done Second Battle of Champagne

1916[edit]

Done Battle of Verdun
Not done Battle of Hulluch
Done Battle of the Somme
Not done Battle of Fromelles
Not done Battle of Pozières
Not done Battle of Ginchy

1917[edit]

Done Nivelle Offensive
Not done Battle of Arras (1917)
Not done Battle of Vimy Ridge
Done Second Battle of the Aisne, also called the Third Battle of Champagne
Not done Battle of Messines
Battle of Passchendaele, also called the Third Battle of Ypres
Not done Battle of Cambrai (1917)

1918[edit]

German Spring Offensive
Not done First Battle of the Somme (1918), also known as the Battle of St. Quentin or the Second Battle of the Somme (to distinguish it from the 1916 battle)
Battle of the Lys, also known as the Fourth Battle of Ypres and the Battle of Estaires
Not done Third Battle of the Aisne
Battle of Cantigny
Battle of Belleau Wood
Second Battle of the Marne
Battle of Château-Thierry (1918)
Hundred Days Offensive
Battle of Amiens
Not done Second Battle of the Somme (1918), also known as the Third Battle of the Somme
Battle of Saint-Mihiel
Battle of Epéhy
Not done Battle of the Hindenburg Line
Meuse-Argonne Offensive, also called the Battle of the Argonne Forest
Not done Battle of Cambrai (1918)
Battle of the Sambre (1918), also known as the Second Battle of the Sambre

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]

Thank you many times over for fixing my many grammatical mistakes. I will help as much as possible. Thanks, my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

Hello, broski. I like your idea for the Background section, and will change it to confirm with your proposal. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

The topic is massive, it's actually a hard article to write. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

Added. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]