Talk:Precision bombing

(First comments)
Can I 'cut and paste' for a Public Domain source (The US Air Force Historical Studies Office) to de-stub this page? The 'Do not Copy' is a bet scary, but when its a PD source, its OK, right? --Bo 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This entire page reads like a sales brochure. I want to see some sources and some review. --Stacman 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For the base source material go to the US Air Force's Air University. Bo 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article, except for the introductory paragraph, is a word-for-word copy of the USAF article cited at the end. It doesn't include any opposing views, so it comes close to being just a piece of propaganda. Lavidia (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a line after the introduction pointing out that the article is just a transcript of another from an outside source. Lavidia (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the Wikipedia pages on copyright violations and plagiarism, and there's nothing that explicitly prohibits making an article entirely out of another from an outside public domain source, but I do think this is not right - perhaps it would be better if the borrowed text is replaced with a link to it. Lavidia (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I originally copied over, a good bit back (say October 2006) was the Air University Article (I checked to make sure it was OK to incorporate a PD article...). There have been improvements made, it is still very heavily based on the scholarly article, but is no longer 'word-for-word'.

Bo (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What 'opposing views' would be needed? The article simply defines PB and traces its history.

I just checked the history, and the only change you made to the article since I did, is the above entry you made in this section. If you do or did make additions, then you will have to put all of the original text between quotes, as otherwise readers will assume your writing is also the author's. You don't seem to have read Wikipedia's guidelines and rules on citations, so I strongly suggest you do so, before you start getting into trouble. As to the character of the article, even scientific articles (i.e.: global warming) cite criticism of the theories and even data involved. In the context of this article, one could start questioning the very concept of precision bombing by pointing out that it is an oxymoron,  since the lethal radius of the 1 or half ton "smart" bombs is more than 200 meters, making a discriminate attack near impossible in a city. Lavidia (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in this article about Tallboys and Grand Slam bombs? Shouldn't they be considered precision weapons? They were designed to hit single (albeit large) targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.131.140 (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
How about a merge to Precision-guided munition, at least until someone puts some research into this? Is there a body of research into smart-bombing as a military strategy, the way there is, say, for strategic bombing? csloat (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a merge is the wrong thing to do. Much of the munitions-oriented material proably belongs in the PGM article, if it is not there already, but there was a lot of theory and effort put into the concept during WWII, and I would rather see this article reduced and the built up again, than to see it merged altogether.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Waffle
Too much waffle about "will to fight" and other such nonsense. I was expecting to read an article about precision bombing, not background material for those of a particular political pursuasion.

Very shoddy work for an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.219.241 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from surgical strike
The surgical strike article is basically a quick summation of precision bombing with a passing mention of surgical strikes sometimes referring to assassinations. I propose merging that information into this article. Gobonobo T C 08:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surgical strike is also used for certain ground operations and isn't exclusive to airpower, while precision bombing (or bombardment to use an earlier term) really is.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased Paragraph
I removed this paragraph because it seemed too biased. It came right at the end of the "Gulf War" section.

Given the nature of precision weapon warfare, education of decision-makers as to their capabilities and limitations is critically important. (And, beyond this, it is particularly true for air warfare in general, for air power has some unique attributes and advantages, though, in one critically important respect, it is like other forms of military power: it should be used to achieve decisive effects, not as a means of merely sending signals or "feel good" sporadic blows). With the rapidly changing state of such technology, it is incumbent that military and defense organizations offer interested individuals opportunities to become acquainted with the broad capabilities of modern military systems. This is particularly true for precision weaponry, for such weaponry has already demonstrated that, in particular circumstances, cherished notions of how wars are to be fought and the enduring value of such military constructs as the linear battlefield are questionable at best or even archaic.

There may be more paragraphs like this throughout the article; I haven't read the whole thing.

Dr. Hipopotamo (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible Merger with Precision Bombing (From Surgical strike)
It's been pointed out to me, that perhaps - although Surgical Strike in itself can be considered a unique term, it isn't necessarily mutually exclusive of Precision Bombing. As a result, it may be better considered to merge the two articles, outlining the use of term, "Surgical Strike" within Precision Bombing. I'll let this be up for discussion at current to see other ideas in regards to the issue - even though I had expanded on this section a tad, I do believe in my own opinion, this to be a more desirable decision. Thoughts in regards to merging Surgical strike into this article here? Kartovskiy (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree with this merge, for the reasons already given (above} and because, as this article has multiple issues, putting more stuff into it isn't going to improve matters. In fact I'm in two minds whether it needs deleting and being completely re-written. Any thoughts on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No to merge. A "surgical strike" is a move to excise a problem in one go and is not exclusively linked to bombing. A first glance, some distinct culling of the current content is required rather than addition. There seems to be too much of the essay or lecture about it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given some of the more lecturing sections some "area bombing". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Discussion Regarding Norden Bombsight
Perhaps it would be worth to discuss how the Norden Bombsight helped? At least in the US, where the doctrine developed, the Bombsight was quite relevant even though later studies have proven that it wasn't as effective, its worth to discuss it since it was believed at the time to be a bit of a holy grail. For my reference to this I believe the Bomber Mafia by Max Gladwell is a book that discusses this (I am aware though that its a controversial book within its field) Chefs-kiss (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)