This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Precision-guided munition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"...weapons intended to maximize damage to the target while THEORETICALLY minimizing collateral damage."
I think that the use of "theoretically" in this context is redundant and bordering on non-NPOV. It is redundant because it is already stated that these are "intended" traits. We could go even further and just define "precision-guided munition" as "weapons that maximize damage to the target while minimizing collateral damage", then we could discuss to what extent existing weapons fit that definition.
While I'm no expert on the topic, I think that existing weapons (laser guided bombs, for example) do fit that definition without any qualifiers (such as "intended" or "theoretically"). The important point is that they minimize collateral damage RELATIVE to the intended damage. This does not mean that they reduce overall collateral damage.
Finally, there should probably be some note about how these traits are relative to the expense or risk to the attacker. An assasins knife could be considered "precision guided" just because there is little chance of a random person being killed by such a weapon. However, the assasin needs to be highly trained and needs to take great risks to use it in such a precise way.
Rebelguys2 - you just deleted the three most detailed technical tutorials on this subject matter available on the web.
This is material which is entirely consistent with WP guidelines and I would like you to reinstate it.
Incidently I did not post these links and received a complaint about your deletion.
Ckopp 14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone should put in that PGM also increase the likelihood of damage being done to the object being targetted, making them more effective weapons. Stargoat 16:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I felt that this paragraph was nonsense, and removed it:
This seems like pure speculation and unless someone can cite examples or a credible source that makes a statement to this effect, this should stay out. The attempt to invoke some kind of probabilistic argument is particularly ill-advised. -- Mike Lin 19:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This article suggests that PGMs are purely an American enterprise, which is simply not true. It needs a broader perspective on non-U.S. efforts, which I'll try to add in the next week or so.
ArgentLA 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"The United States Army began experimenting with radio-controlled remotely guided planes in the First World War, but the program had few successes (see Operation Aphrodite)" - know little to nothing of the subject, but according to the Operation Aphrodite entry, it was purely within WW2. Is the sentance incorrect, or is there are more appropriate entry to cite?
In the aforementioned film, interviewees state (I'm paraphrasing here) that there is "no such thing as a smart bomb", and that weapons manufacturers attribute a degree of precision to their munitions which is unrealistic and difficult to attain. Now, putting ourselves above any anti-american or anti-war sentiments; is there any truth to this? The article provides many explanations for what might cause deviations from high precision; but how often do these deviations happen? How often does the GPS signal get jammed, causing JDAMs etc. to need to revert to inertial guidance? Reading the following sentence, from "Satellite-Guided": "However, if the targeting information is accurate, satellite-guided weapons are significantly more likely to achieve a successful strike in any given weather conditions than any other type of precision-guided munition."? I'm curious as to what actually constitutes a successful strike. These questions are all born out of curiosity, which was piqued by the documentary. Any thoughts on the actual relative smartness of smart bombs, in all cases and not only ideal/exceptional ones? AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Several guided bombs and guided glide bombs were wire-guided, and this should be mentioned. Lastdingo ( talk) 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the introduction, this article seems to be about guided air-to-ground munitions. It is doubtful whether ATGMs (even helicopter-based ATGMs) fit into this category well, as air/ground weaponry of non-helicopter aircraft is usually discussed separately of helicopter arms (which often happen to be a mix of aircraft and ground system munitions). It would be good to clarify the scope of this article to air-to-ground precision guided munitions or to expand it to PGMs in general. PGMs are also in use by tanks, mortars, rocket launchers, howitzers, ship cannons - even all modern torpedoes could be (mis)understood as PGMs. Lastdingo ( talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a blog article about guided munition history, maybe it is helpful if someone wants to write about history in this article: http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/02/precision-munitions-history.html Lastdingo ( talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering why there's no mentioning of PGM's such as the Krasnopol (Weapon)
Victory in Germany ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it was really necessary to have created Guided bomb with text copied from this article. I mean, this article (size: 16k) and Guided bomb (size: 13k) have almost the same content and wording, i don't see the logic of having separate articles. EuTuga msg 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is a more than a little bit riddled with weasel words. Lets try and steer this article away from terms like "The Germans" and instead actually research who invented or pioneered or implicated a technology. '''Aryeonos''' ( talk) 06:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The advent of precision-guided munitions resulted in the renaming of older bombs as "gravity bombs", "dumb bombs", or "iron bombs". /info/en/?search=Retronym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blix1ms0ns ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Precision-guided munition's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "janes":
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No support was expressed, and this seems overdue for closure. There appears to be a consensus not to rename the article, and some distinction between the two topics was expressed. ( non-admin closure) — BarrelProof ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Precision-guided munition →
Guided bomb – Note that there is already an article at
Guided bomb, but it was just an unjustified copy-paste fork from this one. Please see the prior discussion at
Talk:Precision-guided munition#Why split into Guided bomb?. Looking at the description of the two topics, there is no real difference between them, so the copy-pasted fork should just be abandoned. But as an article name, "
Guided bomb" seems better, since it is a more understandable name. There is no clear meaning to the term "precision" as used in the current article name, and "bomb" is more understandable than "munition". —
BarrelProof (
talk) 19:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)