Talk:Plunging fire

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Propose combined with existing article[edit]

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.[reply]

Disagree. Agreed this article needs more references -- I just added one but there's more work needed. However, the concept of plunging fire is not at all the same as enfilade/defilade (you'll note the difference in the newly added ref.). -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the fragment? I've removed your reference for now, since I fail to see how it defines plunging fire, or relation between plunging fire and enfilade fire. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I'm generally opposed to short articles (WP:DICDEF-like), the "Enfilade and defilade" is clearly not a good title for an article that covers multitude of firing techniques. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus doesn't support the merger proposal, the merger tag must be removed .Skr15081997 (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Attack is off topic - discussion[edit]

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)[reply]