Talk:Naval gunfire support
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naval gunfire support article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
This article seems to be about "Naval Gunfire" in general. It would be better placed under that heading.--Counsel 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this article should be renamed Naval Gunfire Support. Lou Sander 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was once, feel free to sort it out. GraemeLeggett 12:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if this is the right place for the information, but I have been working on a naval gunfire support section for some time now, and need a place for the info. This is largly US oriented, salvaged from the Zumwalt class destroyer page, but the information is valid and this article seems apropriete for it. Thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 08:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- You should add Colonel Welch's DOD approved Study to this site.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA469741&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Scope of this article: maybe limited to the US military?
Hi Wikipedians, I've been following-up an interesting series of discussions related (broadly) to the meaning of "Artillery" and related concepts (Field Artillery, Naval Artillery, Ordnance, adequate "Artillery Lists", etc); and in one of those threads I've arrived to this (really interesting, IMHO) article.
Please let me know if I'm wrong, but seems that the concept of "Naval gunfire support" as described in this wikiarticle is limited to the US Military doctrine (more specifically, that of the USMC). If so, it might be worth make a relevant comment at the beginning of the article, at least until further collaboration ensures that a similar concept is embraced by the (naval?) forces of other countries.
Please let me know if you agree/disagree (and why in this case) with my proposal, to proceed with it if appropriate. Thanks & Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article is a fair enough reflection of the NGS concept and operation, but it does suffer the fairly common issue of generic WP MilHist articles in that US centricity is wrapped up in the substantive content. Essentially it's not US centric, but it reads as if it is.
- The topic is pretty generic, although in all honesty battleships have been rendered ineffective unless the offshore force also have air superiority.
- ALR (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Citations & Sources needed
Hi, I've just added the unreferenced tag, as no citations related to the bibliography or other sources were found within the text, to help improve the Verifiability of this article (which I believe is quite good!).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- NGFS does not include rockets, but does include guided shells. Hcobb (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This title is too specific; not all shore bombardment is NGFS
When I tried to go to a "Shore bombardment" article, I was redirected to this article on NGFS, which is 1) a U.S. concept, 2) a modern term not used for most of history, and 3) only a subset of shore bombardment. Much shore bombardment in history had nothing to do with supporting ground forces ashore (as NGFS is defined and as its title implies), but rather with punitive attacks to punish other countries or with destroying targets at locations in which no use of friendly forces is underway or even planned. Royal Navy shore bombardment in the 19th century was not NGFS; the Japanese bombardments of Guadalcanal was not either, and neither was the Tirpitz sortie against Spitsbergen, etc., etc. By redirecting "Shore bombardment" to NGFS, we are painting Wikipedia into a corner by redirecting a more general topic (the history and practice of shore bombardment) to a more narrow one (modern U.S. doctrine for using naval gunfire to support forces ashore). The fix would be to make "Shore bombardment" the main article, and have it discuss shore bombardment around the world and throughout history, and then have either an NGFS subsection within that article or a "main article" tag allowing readers to navigate directly to a narrower but more detailed "NGFS" article (i.e., this article) dicussing modern U.S. naval doctrine for providing fire support to forces ashore. I am thinking of expanding this article to cover more countries and more of history, but that will be awkward at best (and misleading) if we use "NGFS" as the main article on the topic. Mdnavman (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)mdnavman
- I would put it the other way round, Naval Fires is the parent discipline and Shore Bombardment is a sub-set of that.
- I would go as far as to say doctrinally all NavalFires are support whether that is in support of an amphibious entry, support of land activities ashore, or in support of broader political and economic objectives. Those that you've described are all examples of the use of Naval Fires in support of pol/ dip requirements.
- Naval Fires is in fact a NATO doctrine, also used doctrinally by a number of other alliances.
- ALR (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're defining the term too narrowly here, limiting it to what I would call a tactical use, directly supporting attacking or defending troops. Such things as the IJN bombardments of Henderson Field, the "Train Busting" in Korea or the pre-invasion poundings in the Pacific were still shore support, but in what I would call a strategic role, intended to influence the overall course of a campaign, not a specific action. Please note that the terms are strictly mine and are used only to demonstrate the intended effect of the bombardment. JDZeff (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone know if this ship carried Agent Orange chemicals during the Viet Nam conflict? I am asking on behalf of a sailor who has no internet capabilities and is trying to establish a claim for exposure to the defoliant. My email is email@example.com . Thanks.