Talk:Battle of Liège

No Casualties

I've found no web site that lists casualties on either side in this important opening battle of the Great War. Not even Barbara Tuchman's Pulitzer-winning "The Guns of August" contains that material. Most peculiar.

BT 11-06

==

All right, I'm done for now, I'll finish the article later. It's going to be rather long... ^_^ ugen64 18:07, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll get to it... eventually...

At least tell me who won the battle!--Milicz 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this "not global"?

Any idea why this was tagged as "not having a global perspective"? From my own perspective it seems fine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.102.147.50 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with previous comment; the tag doesn't seem relevant - I've removed it; it can of course go back, if we've both missed something here. Scoop100 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Started some cleanup, and adding some references. MarcoLittel (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Errors about the figures and the beginning of the battle ( humbly )

[With my bad English]. According to Horne and Kramer who have strongly learned this chapter of World War I, the first German troops attacking Liège were not 59,000 but only 39,000. The first three days of the invasion was a huge disaster for the Brigades (of which the name is right on the page but they had less soldiers, firstly because some soldiers were not comitted in the battle). Five of the six German brigades must withdraw. On 5 August the 34th Brigade lost 1,500 soldiers and 30 officers (wounded or killed I think: a Brigade have two regiments of 3,500 soldiers). On 6 August 14th Brigade lost more than an half of all its soldiers. According to Horne and Kramer, between 3,500 and 5,000 German soldiers were killed during this first attack (and others were wounded). So, until 8 August, the attack failed. It is important to underline that because in order to be successfull the Schlieffen plan must work quickly!!! The German army must go quickly until France and Paris. But after three, even four days, the German army was not further than its position from the beginning and perhaps back (Horne and Kramer wrote that). For Horne and Kramers the Belgian resistance during the Battle of Liège is one of the main causes of which they named German atrocities and these atrocities linked to the Rape of Belgium. Why? The German army and perhaps also the German government found this Belgian resistance illegal or illégitime because of the neutrality of Belgium (the resistance in itself was helping France but on the other hand Belgium had the right to resist according the Europen treaties of 1839)). It seems actually the plan Schlieffen really failed because of this resistance of Liège. It is impossible to read that in French literature about the World War I but I think it is right (even if I am hesitating, the question is very disputed). Which is certain, it is the fact you are able to understand the atrocities in Belgium (and France): because of this resistance Germany failed.

I have their book only (Horne & Kramer), in French. But it is possible to find some good books in English on the Web or in the libraries. For instance Gerhard Ritter The Schlieffen plan: critique of a myth (I read only some passages). This book is interesting because following its author, the Schlieffen plan was the reason why Germany lost the war, on the political and diplomatic plan but perhaps also on the military plan. It is important also for the History of Belgium because of the so-called Belgian atrocities, and for the History of Wallonia because the most of the casualties of these atrocities (also in France and Flanders), were in Wallonia (2/3 I think), Wallonia being the most important territory on the road of the German invasion. I have also World War One by Priscilla Mary Roberts (one of the authors) History and strategy by Marc Trachtenberg (Princeton 1991) : [[1]. I have aslo an older book (on the Web), who gvers the same figures fort the number of soldiers in the two regiment of the German Brigades (3,500 soldiers). For the whole German army on 4, 5, 6 and 7 August, there were 39,000 troops. After German army added 60,000 other troops and a many pieces of artillery. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The title of the Horne & Kramer's book is John N. Horne, Alan Kramer. German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. 608 S. $40.00 (leinen), ISBN 978-0-300-08975-2. [2] José Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

CE

Added citations from OH, revised the conclusion and centred pic captions, put convert template round metric numbers and tidied some prose (adjective frenzy). Recommend that some of the recent writing more sceptical of the Schlieffen Plan as a blueprint rather than a deployment plan be incorporated (or linked) in the background section.Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Had another go at CE, removed some repetition, did more convert templating, tried to make level 2 and 3 headers the same as the Antwerp ones and moved several paragraphs which were out of sequence. Will look for more sources to cite the first half of the page tomorrow. Gave Namur a cameo in the subsequent operations section.Keith-264 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Found some citations in the Belgian OH and added {{Citation needed|date=January 2014}} while searching.Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Found OOB details on a website which seems pretty decent quality but still looking for one about smelly forts. ;O) A fresh pair of eyes cast over the page would help. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The delay of the German advance needs a balancing sentence because at least one source had the railways open before the last fort fell.Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CE

Started copy editing the page using Namur as a model but it needs a lot more than I can do today, revert as desired in the meantime as I've copied it into a sandbox for surgery. Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Finished the additions from the GOH but need to integrate the rest of the narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

German allegations of franc tireur crimes

Recent edits suggest that the recounting of German allegations of civilian involvement in military operations have not been sufficiently shown to be allegations. The existing text puts the claims in inverted commas, to show that they are claims rather than facts but this has been challenged. Is it the custom in Belgian writing to use "You've got a big bum" rather than You've got a big bum to demonstrate the recounting of a claim rather than an endorsement of it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox result

There has been some editing about what the infobox should display in as the battle's "result". I think it might be worth having a discussion here.

Speaking personally, I agree with Indy beetle that "German victory" is not sufficient. I also respect Keith-264's citing of the template guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that the result perimeter "may use one of several standard terms" only. However, as I mentioned, I think "German victory" is actually misleading and we have a duty under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (which, unlike the template instructions, is actually binding) to "[summarize] key features of the page's subject". Personally, I think that means some mention of the city's role in delaying the German advance which is already enumerated in the article itself. The exact magnitude of the delay is debatable, as Keith says, but mentioning it is far from a fringe theory and therefore reasonable to include.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we go back to See Aftermath Section. That it took time to capture the forts is not disputed by the sources but control of the railways is what mattered to the Germans. In the Analysis section the effect of the Belgian defence of Liege is described. It's not for us to arbitrate between the authors' conclusions.Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll return it to "See Aftermath Section." I agree that we shouldn't summarize any effect unless we find multiple sources with a definitive conclusion on the effect of the delay. Indy beetle (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

With full respect to both of you, the "see aftermath" idea fails to meet any of the guidelines which were at issue in the first place. Frankly, if we can't summarise the content of the article, we should bin the infobox in its entirety. Is there really any doubt that the defence actually delayed the German advance ("German advance delayed", for example, would seem pretty uncontroversial)? Keith-264, I agree with you in principle, but in practice we all choose selectively from WP:RS content because we have limited space on Wikipedia and so need to make some kind of judgment about what gets included and what doesn't.

My suggestion would be "German victory" with "German advance delayed" as a bullet point underneath AND a footnote to the effect that the magnitude of the delay is disputed by historians.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

NoKeith-264 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the phrase "German advance delayed" is quite suitable. I think "Successful Belgian delaying action" would be better, because it conveys the that the Belgians achieved their goal as well, and from what it seems to me reading about this is that the Belgians wanted to delay for as long as possible to buy the French enough time to enter Belgium (which they did, but the French still lost the Battle of the Frontiers). We could also put bullet for "Strategic result disputed" under that, and make a note with a link to the aftermath, eh? Like Brigade Piron, I think we can eventually change the "See Aftermath" tag, but it works at present. At the moment I'm still looking for sources that discuss the strategic outcome. I've found some books, but anything you guys can do would be nice. And Keith-264, could you please explain your dissent with what Brigade Piron suggested (even if it's what you said before, just to be clear)? Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This always happens when tactics, operations and strategy don't coincide but either it goes down as a German victory because it was or See aftermath where the differences between tactical, operational and strategic results are described. The infobox is not the place for a discussion.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Could this be more explicit? Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but then would it confuse the reader to add a bullet point below such a statement that adds a little more information, as per summarizing the info in infoboxes? It's certainly much better than the "tactical X victory" or the like which the guide condemns. Indy beetle (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Which reader? You can have German victory, Belgian victory, inconclusive or what you put earlier, See aftermath section. How have you been getting on looking for RS on the verdict? If you fancy a laugh, look at the reviews for Ten Days in August: The Siege of Liège 1914 [3] here. Keith-264 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264, I don't believe that the guidance you cite from the template has any binding status like an official WP essay or MOS has. I may be wrong. Either way, I'm really not convinced by the argument that adding a bullet point makes it impossible for the reader to follow. By the way, Hew Strachan supports the delay thesis, even if he plays down its magnitude, which he argues contributed to the collapse of the German strategic plan.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Either you follow

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

or you don't but it isn't a matter of opinion. You can have German victory, Belgian victory, inconclusive or See aftermath section.

Strachan wrote "in practice the delay to the German advance was at most a couple of days, as the concentration of the active corps was not completed until 13 August".

Zuber wrote "...contrary to the legend, the resistance of Liege did not delay the beginning of the German advance by a single day."

Herwig wrote "Leman's gallant defence of Liege had cost the Germans perhaps two days...."

Foley wrote "...the fortress was eventually neutralised sufficiently to allow the troops of the right wing to pass, creating just a small bump in the road for the advancing Germans."

Der Weltkrieg "...the fortress of Liege was in German hands - just in time to allow the German army to begin its advance....credit for the rapid success...."

OH 1914 I ".... the German armies were to reach Thionville-Sedan-Mons on the 22nd day of mobilisation - 23 August and were ahead of schedule."Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, William R. Griffiths argument is basically the same as Herwig's, that the battle caused a 2 day delay. Also, Keith-264, I have yet to look into "Ten Days in August," but keep in mind that the bad "reviews" you said it had is actually just a single 2-star rating. So can we please evaluate books by other means? Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I. was. joking. ...Terry is famously stroppy when his judgement is questioned but his descriptions of German army organisation are very good. The review by Japer has him to a T.Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264, Brigade Piron. I hope no one is too bothered by me bringing the subject up so long after the discussion, but I actually want to revisit this. About the bullet points as a result (non)option. I believe that if we except the "delaying action" theory, then we should add a bullet that further explains a result of "German victory." I think this would truly be a beneficial addition to the page, ignoring the rules as per WP:BUREAU. Thoughts?

That sort of hair-splitting is what "see Aftermath section" and leaving it blank is for; there's no need for it. That said you might care to look at the Territory criterion to see if you can use that. Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict[; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement].Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military operation there might be something in adding this under the infobox if you want more details of what was intended and how it went. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted recent edits for a lack of citation but would prefer to discuss them with the new editor 71 to avoid wasting effort. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

71 has been kind enough to add the citations, thanks very much; I've altered them to sfn for consistency. Let's hope that Zuber's book is on offer soon at a discount. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

John Buchan

John Buchan was a novelist who also wrote during and after the war on military subjects [4] including battalion and divisional histories. Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@TiltuM please stop making disruptive edits. Zuber has some good things to say but he is not the only authority on the subject. Might I suggest you explain why you want to alter the article here so we can discuss it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As it is currently constructed, the article's header implies the Germans were delayed at Liège by up to five days. No mention at all is made of the fact that at least two RS (Der Weltkrieg and Zuber) that detail the German right-wing deployment in detail say there was no delay whatsoever. The only justification presented in the article for not regarding the battle as an unambiguous German victory is the supposedly rock-solid fact that the main German advance was delayed by Belgian resistance at Liège. There's actually another point to consider, namely that the British entry into the war might have been delayed had the Germans not attacked Liège, but that's speculation.

• If you look in the Analysis section there is a list of delays of lack with citations, Zuber's view can go in there in chronological order. Same goes for Der Weltkrieg.

The falsehood of Edmonds' claim of a delay forced on the Germans by Belgian resistance can be demonstrated in detail. Edmonds claims that the German II, III and IV AK had deployed on 7 August but only reached a line forty miles west of Liége on 17 August due to Belgian heroics at Liège and that without it, the Germans would have been assembled there by 12 or 13 August. And there's the basis of Edmonds' "four or five days of delay" claim.

• Whether Edmonds is false is not for us to judge, it's OR and not NPOV so since he's a RS it can stay as description of what he wrote in the context of the varying views of the other RS.

In fact, III and IV AK deployed by 11 August and II AK the day after. OHL ordered the 1st Army to begin forward movement of these active-army corps on 12 August, a day ahead of schedule. The active-army corps transited past Liège without any trouble whatsoever. It's obvious that Edmonds was utterly clueless about the facts of the German deployment. Are we supposed to give the German and British official histories equal weight on the details of the German deployment? (See Zuber's Mons Myth (2010), chapter 3 paragraphs 94-100)

• We shouldn't be giving weight to either but describing what they contain.

The "See Aftermath" line implies that we should consider as factual the notion that Liège was a strategic German defeat because of a non-existent delay for them at Liège. Anyway, since this is an encyclopedia and we must apparently give "equal weight" to "reliable sources", no matter how demonstrably wrong, I added the claims by Strachan and Herwig that the Germans were delayed by two days at Liège to the header and didn't put "German victory" into the results box in my second edit.

• Actually, that's you inferring, Template:Infobox military conflict has

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Since there is quite a range of verdicts, In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") applies.

One would imagine that if all RS are indeed created equal, then at the very least the opposing viewpoint of "no delay at all" would somewhow be represented in the header.

• Quite agree but the sources we used in writing the article determined it and Zuber hadn't published then.

With regards to casualties, the source "French Battlefields" actually mentions 7,000 Belgian casualties not 6,000 and secondly does not mention that the Belgian 3rd Division disintegrated after retreating from Liège and that thousands deserted and just went home, which is why Zuber lists 19,000 Belgian casualties and Herwig 20,000. TiltuM (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough but in the past, where there hasn't been a consensus in the sources the range in them has been given instead. Usually, printed sources get precedence over websites.

Notice that the Analysis has Tyng wrote that the delay imposed on the Germans was about 48 hours, although various authorities had claimed anything from no delay to five days.[45]? I wouldn't want you to think that I rubbish Zuber but fitting his findings into the article needs some thought. For example, can his views be summarised in 10-12 lines for the Analysis section and go in chronologically? Does he dwell on earlier accounts which we can include? I have the Canadian trans of OH G 1914 so I can check what's there too.

PS did he include and index? I have Ardennes 1914 and it doesn't have one, which make is much harder to use. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The Battle of Liège (French: Bataille de Liège) was the opening engagement of the German invasion of Belgium and the first battle of World War I. The attack on Liège city began on 5 August 1914 and lasted until 16 August, when the last fort surrendered. The length of the siege of Liège may have delayed the German invasion of France by 4–5 days. Railways needed by the German armies in eastern Belgium were closed for the duration of the siege and German troops did not appear in strength before Namur until 20 August.

Not the longest or most informative lead is it? May was justified by the sources we had and if Zuber rejects that view altogether, we can reword it here. I'll let Brigade Piron know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege artillery numbers?

Can anyone please clarify the numbers of heavy siege artillery involved - and please source this, as it's to make a change to existing content. At present, WP and some external sources, are making various claims for the numbers.

A small number (either 1 or 2) of the new German Krupp 42cm 'Big Bertha' were available. So Germany had to call on Austro-Hungary for use of the Skoda M 11 30.5cm siege mortars, with their Austro-Daimler M 12 tractors. Either four or eight of these were supplied. The tractors were so effective that the mortars were very quickly in position.

Questions remain over:

• One or two of the 42cm? Only the two prototypes were ready, but did both see service?
• When did Germany request support from Austro-Hungary? Was this prior planning, or an emergency request?
• How many of the Skoda mortars were used, four or eight? (Sixteen were in service)

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy of Zuber now so will have a look. Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Short Naval Gun Battery 3: [1] × 42cm mortar
• II and III FAR 4: 16 × 21cm mortars
• I and II FAR 9: 16 × 21cm mortars
• II RFAR 7: 8 × 13cm guns
• 5 Fortress Combat Engineer Battalion: 4 × 30cm [p. 214] heavy trench mortars. p. 204 [Zuber Ten Days in August (2014)]
• No Skoda 30.5cm mortars at Liege p. 199, Zuber criticises the GOH, Tuchmann, Keegan for received opinion. p. 200 9 of 12 forts reduced by 32 × 21cm mortars, only Loncin by 1 × 42cm. Generally Zuber credits the 21cm for destroying forts and moans at writers for embellishing reports of the 42cm.Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

p. 214 includes Heavy Coastal Mortar Battery 5: 1 × 30cm mortar

• p. 233 Mozin (Fleron commandant?) wrote that Fleron bombarded by v heavy shells, couldn't have known about the 42cm at Pontisse on 14 August and speculated that the fire could have come from the Austrian 30.5cm, which didn't fire at Liege Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As you know, I'm an engineering rather than a military historian. What I'm reading (mostly Ludvigsen's Porsche biog) claims 2+8, in a panic afterwards, but specifically for Liège. So I'm wondering if the chronology was an early attack on Liège (i.e. without the Austro-Hungarians in the OOB) turning into a request to the Austro-Hungarians, and the 1+4 OOB from the outset applying specifically to Namur afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not according to Zuber but he's a bit one eyed so I'll cast around more.

• Zuber contrasts the siege of Manonviller in Lorraine, "Six super-heavy guns were assigned to Liege, four to Manonviller, however the 30.5cm did not arrive at Liege in time to fire...." p. 251
• Strachan p.212 has "But by 1914 only five [42cm] were complete. The Germans therefore had to bring up four batteries of Austrian Skoda 305 mm howitzers and not until 12 August could these guns open fire." Strachan H. The First World War: To Arms (2003) p. 212. I wonder if older accounts confuse the 300 mm mortars with Austrian Skodas? Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ludvigsen's point is about the tractor units, not the guns. Because these had Austro-Daimler's new 100hp tractors (which were dedicated to hauling the M11 Skodas), they could go from the railhead to their emplacements surprisingly fast, faster than anything else could. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Romanych & Rupp p. 26 "Because the number of batteries was four short of the pre-war planning estimates, the German General Staff requested four batteries (eight howitzers) of Skoda 30.5cm Model 11 howitzers from the Austro-Hungarian Army. These batteries arrived in mid-August, participating in the sieges of Namur, Maubeuge, and Antwerp, and in attacks against the French fortifications at Givet and the fortification zone between Verdun and Toul."

42cm "Big Bertha" and German Siege Artillery of World War I (2013) Osprey p. 26 Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am the author of Big Bertha (howitzer) and will refer back to my main source, named above by Keith. At this time in the war, there were only two Big Berthas and both were equipped by KMK Battery 3. The official name for the Big Bertha was schwere Küstenmörser, "big huge coastal mortar", to obscure its true purpose - that term is therefore a reference to the Big Bertha. In addition to the Berthas, there were 16 other German siege guns, all detailed on page 26. There were no 42cm Gamma guns because they were a nightmare to transport. I am also going to take this time to remind the universe that "Big Bertha" refers to the M-Gerät, not the Gamma and especially not the Paris guns, which were 21cm, not 42cm. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• What are these "380 mm (15 in) coastal mortars" in use at Pontisse and Fléron on the 12th? (see Battle of Liège#8–16 August). Are these "coastal mortars"? and if so, what and where from, or is it the schwere Küstenmörser camouflage name for the Big Berthas (which shouldn't be translated outside of a proper name), or is it a confusion for the Skodas, which weren't there yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I cited it to the Humphries and Maker translation of Der Weltkrieg that already cited the paragraph. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm busy elsewhere but I'll make time to look in Zuber later on. Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ludvigsen

Is that on p. 38? Not convincing that he thinks the Germans invaded Holland too. I'd trust Romanych more. Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ludvigsen, Karl (2014). "Chapter 2: Power to the Dual Monarchy". Professor Porsche's Wars. Pen & Sword Military. pp. 24–27. ISBN 978-1-52672-679-7.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Obliterated

@Vami IV: Apropos obliterated, should the following about 420 mm guns be gun? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• They can be but I would use "howitzer" or "superheavy artillery." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I meant was there one or two howitzers? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Two Howitzers. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Eythenkew! Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Gun" is wrong, except in the most generic sense. But even "mortar" vs. "howitzer" is problematic here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Overfilling article with illustrations

@Quinet: We'll need to take some out to make roomKeith-264 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

German zeppelin bombs Liège

Did zeppelins ever bomb Liège? Bomb the forts? (which seems utterly impractical) It would seem far more likely that they were spotting for the heavy siege artillery, rather than bombing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cited, see here [5] regards. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)