Talk:Close air support

message: CAS is not equivalent to tactical bombing.  Close air support doesn't have to use bombs at all:  it can be done by fighter and attack aircraft on strafing runs, and by special purpose gunships like the AC-130. Isomorphic 01:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Close air support is not equivalent to tactical bombing

message: I'd like to see more on the early history of close air support.  IIRC, close air support wasn't used much in the partioning of Poland but came to be used later. --Jeffrey Henning 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History 

message: See Talk:Ground attack aircraft#Merge for the discussion on this subject --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Ground attack aircraft

message: 90% of my additions are coming from Jonathan House's Combined Arms Warfare in the 20th Century, an excellent treatment of combined arms warfare. It's quite light, though, on the USMC history, which has been closely tied to CAS. After finishing House's contributions, I'll dig up Simmons and put in the USMC history. Dorr's Marine Air is mainly primary accounts and much more difficult to incorporate as it requires me to perform some level of synthesis. 
House is also very light on the Russian history (which is natural for a Western source). Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Mmx1 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Found a chapter on the AN-MPQ-14 in Victor Krulak's First to Fight. Though the history's there, it's sketchy on the operation and I'm not sure exactly how it worked. As far as I can tell, it was a system to guide a plane to the proper release point; it's unclear if control was from the ground or the air (in the development version control was from the ground), or if it was automated or manual (it hints at automatic but is not clear) --Mmx1 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: An entry on CAS without any reference to the A-10? 64.179.121.98 05:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The A-10 is now mentioned, but I think the entire Aircraft section needs a rethink. It again confuses CAS with tactical bombing. I don't think there were any dedicated CAS aircraft in WW2, perhaps ever (exception may be attack helicopters). To say that the Stuka was a dedicated CAS aircraft must be wrong - it was used in many other roles including interdiction and anti-shipping. This article should probably just give a flavour and defer to ground attack aircraft. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-10 

message: Do we need to abbreviate close air support to CAS? Whilst recognising that this is current military jargon, I think it would be better for general readers if we either wrote it in full, or where appropriate shortened it to "air support".
Also, I am used to seeing the Army Air Force abbreviated to USAAF, not AAF. Is that just my British usage or should we replace AAF with USAAF? Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: A whole article of CAS, and there is only a few sentences on the Red Air Force and the Il-2? I was under the impression that was an aircraft that was used largely for CAS functions, and that the Russians developed a very sophisticated system for utilizing CAS aircraft. Maybe I'm mistaken.
If we agree that there is generally more than 3 aircraft involved in a cab rank, and that is just being used to convey the idea, perhaps it should say "although in reality, there were generally far more than 3 aircraft involved in attacking"? I read that and assumed someone was saying that only one plane attacked any given target at a time, which I was pretty sure was wrong. Other people may not know enough to realize that, and take it literally.
The place where it says that the Germans took the example of the SBC Helldiver...pretty sure it was a different plane they were inspired. I've read Udet tried dive bombing in a Curtiss F11C Goshawk, and was impressed, thus brought the doctrine to Germany. The page on the Ju 87 says the same thing. Whatever plane it was, it didn't "result in the famous Ju 87 Stuka", it resulted in the Henschel Hs 123, which is a lot closer to a small fighter-based bomber than the large, long-range 2-seat SBC, which was a fleet scout bomber that could also dive-bomb. Big,long-range, 2-seat designed as a fleet scout/dive bomber vs. small, single seat, short range aircraft designed as a close air support aircraft (most internet articles give the SBC's range as "405 miles", but according to Hamlyns, it was 590mi with a 500lb bomb. The Wiki for the Hs 123 says 298mi with a 400lb bombload). The two share nothing besides biplane wings and a ability to dive bomb. The Hs 123 was also influenced by the earlier He 50, which was ordered by Japan, who was also interested in dive bombing, and who developed the He 50 into the Aichi D1A. The Stuka came later, to replace these older types.
Since we're on the topic of the Stuka, most of the mission the Stuka flew in Poland and the first part of the war on the Eastern front were not actually "close air support" missions. They were used primarily as tactical bombers, attacking retreating and advancing troop concentrations, defending the flanks of armored thrusts, taking out bridges and other communications. These are not CAS missions. They were tactical missions intended to keep the enemy so panicked and disorganized that they wouldn't get much chance to fight the ground forces, who would thus not need much actual CAS. When actual close-proximity CAS was called for, the Hs 123 stood in. The Hs 123 was retained in service because the Stuka was unavailable to fly the CAS mission it was designed for, which was true until the Hs 123s disappeared through attrition and other types of aircraft took over the tactical bombing role. The Stuka was not widely used as a CAS aircraft until later in the war..45Colt 15:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Close air support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130825064743/http://www.fac-assoc.org/Ancestry/ancestryofforwardaircontrollersthroughtwwii.htm to http://www.fac-assoc.org/Ancestry/ancestryofforwardaircontrollersthroughtwwii.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Close air support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608001520/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4463968B-8061-4E75-BDC3-05074EFA8AFF/0/20071218_ijwp3_30_U_DCDCIMAPPS.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4463968B-8061-4E75-BDC3-05074EFA8AFF/0/20071218_ijwp3_30_U_DCDCIMAPPS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Close air support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622010032/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/2spr90.html to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/2spr90.html
*Added  tag to https://jfiit.eglin.af.mil/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just reverted the change to the lead image. Although eye catching, I find it a couple of things wrong with using it. First, it's been digitally altered, presumably to put the aircraft in a more aesthetically pleasing position. Second, it a simulated explosion - i.e. the explosion is ground based pyrotechnics with the aircraft doing a flyby.
File:A-10 simulates close air support Nellis AFB.jpg|Edited version. Explosion is in exactly the same state, aircraft in different position.
File:A-10 simulates close air support.jpg|Original as from USAF flickr feed.
Additionally, all the images of ground controllers, as well as some other images had been removed, which I don't think was helpful to the article - so I have reverted that too. (Hohum @) 16:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image, other images