Talk:Strafing

message: This etymology seems exceptionally unlikely for a gaming term. How many gamers know enough Greek to base a term on it, especially when the alternative is a modification of a military term. Any evidence? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strephein

message: I added on strafing of civilians by Luftwaffe in 1939.
--Molobo (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Molobo, would there be an English version of this source: "55 dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce" Szymon Datner, page 96 Warsaw 1967" anywhere? Don't forget most readers will be English. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed this because it's not significant that the civilians were attacked by strafing. If they had been attacked with bombs it would have made no difference. There are articles that talk about attacks on civilians (which were certainly not uncommon) but having it here does not add anything to the reader's knowledge of strafing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added 

message: * Support - Gaming 'strafing' and warfare 'strafing' are completely different. See no reason not to split. --mcpusc (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split 

message: This article on the ABC refers to strafing from helicopters, as in "Helicopters strafed rebel positions in Al-Heffa". I had always thought of strafing as being from an airplane, involving not just the shooting but the linear motion of the fall of the bullets, something that a helicopter wouldn't necessarily do (although it could also be done in that manner from a moving vehicle). So, should helicopters be included in the context? 58.7.164.40 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include helicopters? 

message: The article definitions do not correspond at all to video game use, where strafing is more akin to "moving while shooting". That's a meaning that many millions will come here looking for. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be Updated to include Video Game use 

message: That's the best word I can think of to describe it; it sounds like it's been written by a few dozen middle schoolers or something (with good parts between). I've rewritten the introduction, which seemed to focus on a number of different eras and ideas, as well as containing some inaccurate information. Primarily, it claimed that "cannons" (no mention of machine guns) "MUST" be mounted for converge fire lower and further than for aerial combat, which is untrue. US fighters engaged in escort missions, setup for dogfighting, routinely engaged and strafed ground targets on the trip home from Germany. Setting the convergence lower is HELPFUL, and was often done when the aircraft was unlikely to see air combat (i.e. over France after Germany lost air superiority), but it is not NECESSARY for an aircraft to strafe targets. Indeed, I would bet money that in theaters where there was a real risk of encountering enemy fighters (i.e. Hurribombers over Africa), they DIDN'T set convergence lower, even though they were assigned ground attack missions, because it's far harder to dogfight with guns set too low and far out than it is to strafe a target with guns set high and close for aerial gunnery. I also changed things like the link to Stinger missile to MANPADS, because the generic topic is a lot more relevant than a single example of one type of MANPADS is. Also, it listed "Stinger missiles AND surface to air missiles". Stingers ARE surface to air missiles. Small ones that can be fired from the shoulder. Thus it sounds immature to list both. I've noticed that any article involving military weaponry of any sort seems to attract this stuff like flies to honey. It's like all the 13 year old COD fans who think they're experts in military things come to make "improvements", and to champion their own favorite weapon and "team" against the "enemy" claims. Which isn't really the way it's supposed to work (and I'm not referring to this article here, just generally bitching)..45Colt 04:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole article is immature. 

message: 'The Luftwaffe's best strafing plane was the Junkers Ju-87 Stuka.' (a) Tone is schoolyard-ish, (b) reallY?, (c) can a dive bomber be described as a strafing plane?, (d) would the variant with the 37 mm cannon spray fire from near-horizontal flight? Wouldn't it pick off individual targets and/or attack from a dive?
Regards to all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.183.130 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II 

message: Came upon the page because it was flagged to improve the lead section, and I moved what seemed to me to be more detailed work on strafing than appropriate to a lead to a section which I am fairly sure shouldn't be called 'strategy' but I couldn't think of a more appropriate term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WasBrendanDoyle (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section edit