Talk:Fighter-bomber

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Aviation: Aircraft C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Efficiency[edit]

Perhaps it should be noted that modern fighter-bombers are not more accurate than older ones. ie a P47 was just as accurate in bringing down large structures as an F16, and was equally efficient in theater ^[1]

References

^ The Age of Airpower by Martin van Creveld

Terrible Article[edit]

This is a poorly-written article. The WWII section is entirely too long, and discusses many aircraft that weren't even used as fighter-bombers. Same with the Korea section. Finally, an article about fighter-bombers with NO mention of the F-105 Thunderchief? Dukeford (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also no mention of any Soviet aircraft (Mig-27, Su-24)

This is garbage. The term "fighter-bomber" is never properly defined (IMO because it's a colloquialism). What it means is never explored and the "development" section is disjointed anecdote. The writing needs editing but most of it could be outright deleted. What little there is of value here should more properly sit in individual aircraft pages, or in campaign pages. Finally, as noted above, the focus is exclusively on Anglophone aircraft. 213.123.58.202 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Age of Airpower by Martin van Creveld

[1]