Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lewis Gun

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lewis Gun

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Commander Zulu (talk)

The article has been significantly expanded, re-written, re-organised and comprehensively referenced. It is also a Core Topic Article as part of the Centenary Drive, and I think it's more than ready for A-class Review. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments No problems were reported with external links. Three dab links need to be locate and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've located two of the dab links and fixed them; the third seems to be the redirect from Lewis gun to Lewis Gun. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - references look pretty good. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a solid article, but it needs further work:
  • I'm surprised that there's no discussion of the Lewis Gun's use by infantry units, and the vital role that the weapons played during World War I. This was the main, and by far most important use, of the weapon. This should include a discussion of how the gun was integrated into infantry squads, and the fire and movement tactics it allowed.

I don't have any references discussing that, and we all know what happens when you put things which are known to be true but unreferenced into articles. ;) The article does mention the gun was popular because it could be produced quickly and carried by a single soldier, though. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The 'World War I' section states that the US Army 'unofficially' used the Lewis Gun - could you explain what this means? A brief comparison of the Lewis Gun and the BAR would be worth including

The sentence stemmed from the fact that sources can't seem to agree on whether or not the US Army used the Lewis Gun. The US Marines did, and the Aviation Section of the Signal Corps. (the forerunners of the USAF) used them too, but I have as many cites for "The US Army never used them" as I do for "The US Army finally started issuing them in 1917, but not officially because Lewis had pissed off the Ordnance Board", and given that the USMC and the Air Corps had them, it seems logical that Infantry units would have acquired some as well, given that the alternative was the Chauchat. As for the BAR, it really appeared too late in the war to be of any consequence and I don't think a comparison is appropriate in this article- they were designed for different things at different times. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The 'Aircraft Use' section doesn't explain why the gun was commonly used on aircraft - presumably it was because it was light-weight. I imagine that the use of magazines rather than belt ammunition was a limitation in aircraft - is this correct?

Correct, and also because they were air-cooled and thus not subject to overheating. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The article doesn't explain why the Lewis Gun was phased out of service following World War I

Replaced by the Bren Gun, basically, but again, I don't have a hard reference for that handy. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • There were no such things as 'ANZAC forces' in the Pacific during World War II - the Australian and NZ military commands were totally separate except for when Australian and NZ units served under US or British command. Could you please also provide more detail on how the guns were used? - I'm pretty certain that they were only used in secondary roles such as AA defences, and infantry units had sufficient Bren Guns (which were being mass-produced in Australia by 1941)

I have a cite from Skennerton to the effect they were used in a front-line role by Australian troops. The ANZAC thing was just a shorthand, but I'm happy to change it if it will make things clearer. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The claim that the Lewis Gun was the RN's most successful light AA weapon of World War II is surprising- I would have thought that the 20mm cannon would have this honour

Again, I have a contemporary cite (1943 Basic Manual of Small Arms) to the effect that the Lewis was the most effective AA gun the British (not just the Royal Navy) had. Surprised me, too, but there you go. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • In what roles did the Japanese use the Lewis Gun during World War II?

Same as the British and US- Anti-Aircraft and LMG. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Similarly, in what roles did the French and US use the use the Lewis Gun in Indochina? (and why did they do so given that neither country's army made much use of the weapon even before it was obsolete)

They didn't, and the article doesn't say they did. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry - I misread that. Are there further details on Viet Minh/VC usage? (again, it seems likely that these were ex-Japanese weapons) Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I could E-mail Ian Skennerton and ask him, but I'm not sure how I'd go about citing his reply here... Commander Zulu (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • If the Lewis Gun was used by 'forces operating against the United Nations in the Korean War' why aren't China or North Korea listed in the 'Users' section? More detail on this would be interesting if its available - were these ex-Japanese weapons?

No details available; that's all I have (again, from Skennerton). Doesn't say who or in what capacity. We get back to the whole "No cites" or "Original Research" thing. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The para which begins with 'Total production of the Lewis Gun by BSA was over 145,000 units' seems to be two unrelated sentences stuck together.
  • The 'Influence on later designs' is much too short - sections of articles should have more than a single sentence. I'm surprised that this doesn't also discuss the Lewis Gun's influence on warfare and subsequent designs by validating the concept of light machine guns, and demonstrating that they were vital to infantry. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any references for that. We both know it's true, but unless someone has got a cite to that effect, it can't go in the article. I know, it annoys me too. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• Image sandwich in the Aircraft use section.
• I'd suggest removing the See Also section if you can find a place in the article to link to all of those things.

Otherwise I couldn't find any new problems, but an withholding my support until the issues mentioned above are fully resolved. – Joe Nutter 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "See Also" section, but I don't know how to resolve the "Image Sandwich" problem- both those pictures are absolutely necessary, but if you don't sandwich them, the format gets buggerised and you end up with lots of blank space between sections in the article. Anyone got any suggestions on re-arranging it so it all looks nice and keeps the images? Commander Zulu (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

{{fixbunching}}? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

• The intro should be expanded to two paragraphs.
• You use "U.S." (with periods), but "UK" (without periods). Whichever you use should be consistent. I would suggest without periods.
• You repeat information in the background and service sections about the US Army rejecting the gun.
• Use of rank abbreviations ("Col.") is discouraged by the Manual of Style, if I remember right. I suggest using the full rank title the first time the person is mentioned, then just using the person's last name thereafter.
• File:ChandlerKirtlandLewisGun.jpg doesn't have a source for the image. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is still took short. Your footnotes are still cited irregularly, pp and p for multiple pages, and also, don't use "and", just put commas beetween the numbers and ranges. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.