![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
138.163.128.41 ( talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)This article cites no references and is poorly written and researched. The concept sounds like Enfilade and defilade fire concepts which already have an article and is well documented and researched.
Since the consensus doesn't support the merger proposal, the merger tag must be removed . Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The section
Top Attack may contain material unrelated or insufficently related to the topic of the article
Plunging fire Please discuss this issue in this talk section. Reason for off-topic: Top attack is not a type of plunging fire, top-attack is notable on its own, and so should have its own article.
I am starting this talk thread, as I don't believe Top Attack should be in this article as "top attack" munitions really don't meet the definition of this page, Plunging fire. At best, the FGM-148 Javelin at least follows a somewhat similar trajectory, although, it is a direct fire weapon, and the path is flown via guidance and certainly the rest of the weapons/munitions listed in the table are not plunging fire either, as for some reason, there are some Air-to-ground weapons listed (like the Hellfire). I'd argue the only guided weapons to meet the definition would be the M982 Excalibur, which ironically is not listed in the table; and maybe to a lesser extent (although I'd argue semantically that the aren't) is the submunition artillery rounds SMArt 155, Bofors 155mm BONUS etc. Furthermore, I think top-attack is definitely notable on its own, and should have its own page. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 16:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
138.163.128.41 ( talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)This article cites no references and is poorly written and researched. The concept sounds like Enfilade and defilade fire concepts which already have an article and is well documented and researched.
Since the consensus doesn't support the merger proposal, the merger tag must be removed . Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The section
Top Attack may contain material unrelated or insufficently related to the topic of the article
Plunging fire Please discuss this issue in this talk section. Reason for off-topic: Top attack is not a type of plunging fire, top-attack is notable on its own, and so should have its own article.
I am starting this talk thread, as I don't believe Top Attack should be in this article as "top attack" munitions really don't meet the definition of this page, Plunging fire. At best, the FGM-148 Javelin at least follows a somewhat similar trajectory, although, it is a direct fire weapon, and the path is flown via guidance and certainly the rest of the weapons/munitions listed in the table are not plunging fire either, as for some reason, there are some Air-to-ground weapons listed (like the Hellfire). I'd argue the only guided weapons to meet the definition would be the M982 Excalibur, which ironically is not listed in the table; and maybe to a lesser extent (although I'd argue semantically that the aren't) is the submunition artillery rounds SMArt 155, Bofors 155mm BONUS etc. Furthermore, I think top-attack is definitely notable on its own, and should have its own page. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 16:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)