Talk:Precision-guided munition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

"...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.

adam

Contents 1 inappropriate deletion of appropriate links 2 increased damage 3 misses 4 Too much U.S. emphasis 5 Misleading sentance in second paragraph 6 Views Expressed in Why We Fight (2005 film)

[edit] inappropriate deletion of appropriate links

Rebelguys2 - you just deleted the three most detailed technical tutorials on this subject matter available on the web.

• Guided and Unguided Weapons
• Laser Guidance
• GPS Guided Weapons - Parts I-V

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)

[edit] increased damage

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)

It says that twice in the first paragraph - directly in the first sentence, and by implication in the second. Securiger 06:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] misses

I felt that this paragraph was nonsense, and removed it:

Ironically, despite the greater precision of precision-guided weapons, the failure of their guidance systems can cause greater damage than a miss from an ordinary bomb. Misses from older, unguided munitions are generally normally distributed around the aim point. Thus it can be assumed that the further you are from the target, the safer you are. On the other hand, most smart bomb misses are caused by system failures—a jammed steering fin, computer failure, loss of homing signal, etc. In this case, the weapon is actually more likely to miss the target by a very large distance, than by a small distance.

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)

[edit] Too much U.S. emphasis

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)

How about adding a history section, including German Ruhrstahl SD 1400 and like? [1] Talamus 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Also the Henshels & Fritz X, as well as (American...) Felix & GB-8. Trekphiler 12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading sentance in second paragraph

"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?

Less "Misleading" than " misreading": the U.S., along with Britain, did experiment with RC in WW1 & interwar; Aphrodite was entirely WW2, but wasn't connected (directly) to previous work. See (for instance) A J P Taylor's Jane's book of RPVs. Trekphiler 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views Expressed in Why We Fight (2005 film)

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)