Talk:Cold-weather warfare

message: the phrasing "The Falklands War in the 1980s had to end in June" has to be changed: according to whom did it have to end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.91.163 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is so unreferenced that it is not even clear that the term is defined correctly in the article! On the face of it, Arctic Warfare would be a term used to describe warfare taking place in the Arctic, with a possible stretch to include the Antarctic. I could find no references to indicate that it applies to warfare in the cold.
Even if it did, India/Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia certainly don't count. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: Do the sources being used mention changes in warfare due to the longer nights in winter, and also the effect of polar night and/or midnight sun on operations conducted close to the poles? (Hohum @) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I added "During winter night operations are the norm, since higher latitudes have longer periods of darkness." under Tactics. User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Night operations in the event of 24 hour sunlight would seem unlikely ;), so that probably needs some expansion. (Hohum @) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just paraphrasing the manual! User:HopsonRoad 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day/night effects 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cold-weather warfare. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724184522/http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=53&kategori=2&underkategori=1 to http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=53&kategori=2&underkategori=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi ‎Chiswick Chap, thank you for your addition of an informative and well-sourced section on camouflage to this article. In your edit comment, you suggested bringing across a bit on WWI mountain warfare. I looked at Mountain warfare#World War I and found it to be among many sections in that article without any citations. Perhaps that could be fixed in that article, before it is brought across here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hadn't even seen that article. I merely mentioned that the topic deserved coverage, and I've at least illustrated it in the snow cam section. There is material at Italian Front (World War I), not of my making. You may find The Smithsonian's report a useful starting-point. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain warfare – WWI 

message: Manelolo replaced an image, with the following comment, "replace bad quality pic with featured pic". Here are the two images: 
I don't concur with the assessment that the new one is superior for illustrating the article, except for having a higher degree of artistic merit. 
The Old image shows camouflaged troops in position with the skis that they used to travel there. The caption doesn't have to do very much to explain the significance of their tactics, nor is there any doubt that it depicts warfighting. 
The New image relies entirely on the caption to tell its significance. The person depicted is not in a warfighting posture and is not wearing winter camouflage. Therefore, what we might be looking at could be a reindeer herder or hunter. The image may also give undue weight to the role of draft animals in the conflict. 
What is the assessment of other editors? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: c:Commons:Featured pictures should not be confused with Wikipedia:Featured pictures -- a major distinction between the two is that the Wikipedia version emphasizes the encyclopedic value (i.e. ability to illustrate the subject matter) of an image. Having spent some years at the latter, I agree that the previous image has more encyclopedic value for the reasons you state. MER-C 22:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The old image is of far more use. (Hohum @) 23:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

text:  Agreed, my bad. Manelolo (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, the old image is apposite, relevant, and encyclopedic, enhances the article, and gives an idea of what was involved in fighting in such conditions. The new one looks as if someone is joking about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean, to be fair, it's not a joke. At that time and age, reindeer were as important to cold-weather/arctic warfare as horses were to more "temperate-climate" warfare. :-D Although not a sexy topic, true. But as the saying goes, "amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about supply." Nevertheless, the old pic is better suited for the article and the fuss can be closed (since I switched the pic). Manelolo (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of images 

message: This article is about winter warfare. During the Raid on Kirkenes in July is was about 17° C outside. Thats recreational weather. Nothing to do with main topic of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzosft (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Arctic warfare is also within the scope this article, as described in the lead sentence. It's purposely titled "Cold-weather warfare" to address such issues as you mention. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What Cold/Arctic issues did that raid have? If it's none, it's not a good example to use in the article, even if it was conducted in the Arctic. (Hohum @) 16:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I have deleted the entire section on WWII naval operations in the arctic, none of which mentioned issues of cold in the text. Thanks for your discussion, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter warfare 

message: Thank you for your analysis, regarding Finnish tactics against the Russians. I searched several sources and couldn't find support for the material regarding field kitchens, except for a brief description of a "sausage war" where combatants from both sides attacked encampments where there was a field kitchen. See, for example, A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939–1940 By William R. Trotter. I have reverted your entry, but welcome further contributions, supported by references. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sausage war" 

message: , Chiswick Chap,  creffett, and Gonzosft, thank you all for your suggestions on how to improve this article. As you can see, below, I have made a good-faith effort to find citations, pertaining to this subject. I have also substantially increased the content of the article, based on those citations. I have searched for more in-depth writings about Russian and Chinese cold-weather warfare doctrine and materiel, but have only found a few examples of publicity material. If anyone can offer something further, I'd be interested to incorporate it into the article.
In the meantime, because the recent additions add examples from Japan, China, Argentina, and India/Pakistan, introduce substantive topics with German and Russian material, add a substantive discussion of Russian practice, and add new and more diverse images (including a substitution in the lead image), I feel that the badge statement that "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the US military and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject", is no longer true. Therefore, I propose to remove the badge, unless there is a consensus against doing so. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I see  has removed the tag, and I agree with it. Very well done. creffett (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have looked at the article briefly and it seem that picture selection is more balanced now. Im not sure for now if there  is anything to do about the sources used in the article that seem heavily connected to NATO. But I guess NATO-linked sources are among the best one available... I agree the template can be removed until further issues are discussed in detail (e.g. lack of content regarding contemporary Chinese, Indian and Russian definitions, research and doctrines). Also, article may have too many images, particularly in the "Training by nation" section.   Dentren | Talk 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I look forward to sources surfacing regarding contemporary Chinese, Indian and Russian doctrine and materiel. I've looked hard for them and found only official, self-congratulatory websites. Much of the content is based on physics, not doctrine, e.g. the nature of snow, mud, precipitation, and cold. It's how to handle those conditions that is of interest, especially if there are different approaches. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose to remove badge

message: Please add battle of Lund (1676) and battle of Narva (1700)92.34.208.212 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for these suggestions. The Battle of Lund article doesn't have any references supporting the main cold-weather effects described. There were several different Battles of Narva. Which one did you have in mind and why is it a good example for this article. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add these 2 battles 

message: , I see that you have added some images to the 20th century section. One problem is that the create MOS:SANDWICH; another is that there are now three images showing troops in trenches or other protected location (Tommies in trench, Austrians on mountain, and Finns behind berm). Perhaps we should choose one image from WWI and one from WWII, but not both showing soldiers behind barriers. If the images were diverse enough, I would suggest a gallery. Thank you for your interest in this article! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I just moved them around in order to prevent them crashing into later sections. I agree, remove low quality images as required, while keeping as much relevancy and diversity as possible. (Hohum @) 19:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images? 

message: I note the possibility of substituting "combat" for "warfare" in the lead sentence. It's good for tautology, but is it accurate? Let's discuss. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "military operations" is a good alternative, because warfare isn't necessarily active combat. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warfare vs combat