Talk:Overwatch (military tactic)

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: Votes for deletion/Overwatch

To the author, Weatherman: I realize that this article is new, and Wikipedia needs articles on military topics. See the VfD debate, though: If this is a commonly used military term, we need some evidence of that. Also, the information, if it cannot be expanded, might well be better on a List of military terms article. We no doubt need military information, but at present this is a bit too brief and unexplained. Geogre 13:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page was placed on VfD: Discussion resulted in decision to RETAIN: A military term with difficult-to-establish usage. I wrote a note on the article's discussion tab asking the author to expand or consider another manner of providing the information to Wikipedia. Geogre 13:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Keep. Very common military concept used in any discussion of modern tactics of "fire and maneuver". Current content is a mere definition (and not completely right). I'll try to fix it later. Rossami 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) o Comment: That's all I could ask for, Rossami. I sure don't mind being proven wrong, if it means we get good articles on military topics that we've been lacking. Geogre 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Keep. As above. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Keep. Even if Rossami does not have time to expand, it is a valuable entry and someone with extensive military knowledge could add great contribution to it (i.e. common usage, historical usage, examples, etc.) Skyler 21:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) * Keep Important military concept, merits expansion, not deletion. -FZ 15:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the term 'bounding overwatch', where the unit is split into two or more subunits and one moves under cover of the others?

Edit: The statement above, would be the Tactical use of only 'Over-Watch'. But, when the advancing unit stops, and the 'Over-Watch' element moves to advance and passes their lines, then the passed element becomes the 'Over-Watch' element as the last 'Over-Watch' element passes the unit and presses forward. It is a form of Leap-Frogging where the two elements exchange roles as they 'bound' forward. This is the essence 'Bounding Over-Watch'.

One more note: the main page states: 'The term overwatch originates in U.S. military doctrine.'. I was a Tank Commander with the 1st Armored Division (American) in Germany after the Yom Kippur War (1973). We were trained in these tactics by Isreali Tank Commanders in Germany after Yom Kippur. We basically used German WWII tactics (On-Line, Echelon Left or Right, V-Formation...etc) previous to the Isreali training of us. Having trained and qualified with German tanks (Leopard II) and tactics, I am unaware of any German equivilent. While in Germany I was invited to, and became colleagues with retired members of the 35th Panzer Regiment as I am fluent in German. You might read 'Knight's Cross; The 35th Panzer Regiment'. (I happened to be a Tank Commander of the American 3rd Battalion/35th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division) and we happened to share the same barracks as they had pre and post WWII). They seemed happy that the Bamberg Kaserne still belonged to the 35th Armored/Panzer. They were keen to warn me about Russia and how sadly our American Supply Trucks would do in the mud. I listened mostly, but I asked questions too. They knew of no such tactics as 'Over-Watch' or 'Bounding Over-Watch' and there are other examples of Isreali tactics not mentioned here. The term, 'Uber Uhr' means no such thing. I too must regretfully doubt Steve Moyer's assertions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

-

In German the words "over watch" translate into "Uber Uhr." It is a word which lends itself to a connotation of superiority, as in "taking the high ground and conducting overwatch duty."

It also sounds like the pretext of a justification for continued military presence in Iraq and the presumption that American military might is required to maintain Iraqi government control. Some people might look at this as "propping up a puppet government." While the term "puppet government" doesn't get much play on American news media, it is widely used in Iraq to describe their current government. Perhaps the political solution requires that this perception is changed. It's difficult to see how that will happen while American military forces conduct "overwatch duty."

Steve Moyer http://stevemoyer.us

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.50.254 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Moyer is scarily prescient. This does look like it's being used for propaganda. Needs verification or deletion. 62.131.79.96 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Still no sources?
This is a very well written little article -- succinct but descriptive -- but it's still lacking a single reference 8 years in! Can someone remedy? Snow (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While there is a reasonable case to revert to status quo ante, there are also reasonable arguments that a disambiguation page at the base title is the optimal solution, and that "Overwatch" does not reach "Apple" level in terms of recognizability. Page view statistics would be an interesting metrics for a future RM. No such user (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

– Request to revert undiscussed move by. No evidence has been presented that the video game released less than 2 months ago has taken over the MilHist topic in significance. This is a classic Apple/Apple Inc. situation. SST flyer  13:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Overwatch (military tactic) → Overwatch
 * Overwatch → Overwatch (disambiguation)
 * If it's undiscussed, you can just do it anyway per WP:BRD, and then the initial move has to be discussed, no? Nohomersryan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this reversion, for the record. However, there's no need for a formal RM here; you can simply revert it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, its not just the game, there's also the Australian military unit.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean Overwatch Battle Group (West), that title is already sufficiently disambiguated. Also, that article will never be at the plain title Overwatch, so it's not a reason to move this article away from the plain title. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Overwatch battle group is never going to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Overwatch, yes. But the existence of the group is another reason why the overwatch tactic shouldn't be. Also the Apple/Apple Inc. comparison isn't anywhere close to this one, considering the tactic is nearly a stub.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Quite frankly I'm not sure the military tactic needs its own article, per WP:DICDEF. Just because it came first doesn't guarantee it gets to stay as the primary topic.  Calidum   ¤   05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Standalone article or redirect?
This used to be an article from 2004 until a bold redirecting in 2021. I don't want to make any statements about notability (this is outside my topic areas), but I'm seeing plenty of uses on Google Books, and the article survived an AfD (in 2004). The topic is also sought by a lot of readers: its entry on the dab page Overwatch receives clickthroughs of the same overall order of magnitude as those for the very popular video game of the same name. A separate article with a few paragraphs of context is more useful to readers than a single-sentence entry in a big list. Because of all that, I intend to restore the article. – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you have multiple, reliable sources, go for it. Which sources do you plan to use? And what are you using to track dab page clickthroughs? czar  03:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no, no: I'm not going to make any content changes, this is not my topic area (I came here only because of the ongoing RM on the Overwatch video game). I was simply suggesting restoring this article as it's more useful for readers. I haven't really dug for sources, but I see stuff like this 75-page report entitled Sustaining the Tempo: A New Method of Overwatch . Also, if there's any topical reorganisation to be done, it will probably make sense to merge Bounding overwatch here, or if these two are to be upmerged, then a better target would be the article about the larger topic (Fire and movement?); I'll leave those bigger decisions to others though. The dab clickthroughs are from Wikinav (which shows the most recent month; for older data you'd need the WP:Clickstream). – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That Wikinav link shows the video game receiving 70% of outgoing pageviews so the claim that that's the same magnitude as this concept seems incorrect.
 * And for what it's worth, that linked School of Advanced Military Studies report does not strike me as a source with editorial oversight. I'd be interested in seeing what overabundance of sources we'd be using to write this article and warrant a dedicated page. Based on the coverage I saw previously, I believe we adequately cover the topic within the existing glossary entry. czar  16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikinav link currently shows the clickthroughs for March: 68% for the game and 23% for the tactic. Of the two differ by a ratio of 3x then this indicates they're roughly the same order of magnitude. I continue to believe that reducing the article to a single-sentence definition inside a glossary is not an improvement and that the topic indeed lacks notability then the better course of action is to merge it, possibly along with some of the related topics, into the superordinate article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to merging it, but we should not restore unsourced or poorly sourced content czar  22:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's content is consistent with what I glimpsed from my searches. Do you believe anything there is dubious? – Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the unsourced paragraph. If there is not enough sourcing to support a dedicated article, I'm not sure what you're proposing. There is nothing to restore here but a dictionary definition. czar  22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)