Talk:Crossfire

message: Removed from the article:
:(Author's note -- I don't know why I always got the impression that WWI pilots didn't strafe targets. They could have. Perhaps the aerial battle was always as stale-mated as the ground battle)
I have made a start on adding some 'technical terms' to this article. I have assumed that "crossfire" is a general military tactic and not just confined to WW1. There's still a lot more to; particularly to link in other defensive principles.  Julianp 03:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed note 

message: Setting up interlocking fields of fire and fire lanes has been tactic in use until today. It's not obsolete - and was certainly standard procedure through at least WW2.
*WWII pill boxes featured gun slits at angles to their sides e.g. those the built for the British anti-invasion stoplines. Fire from the mutually supporting positions would have created cross fires.KTo288 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossfire isn't obsolete 

message: The Australian Army differentiates between overlap and interlock. I would assume every army makes a similar distinction, whatever the terminology. 'Overlap' occurs when weapons' fire arcs cover any of the same ground. 'Interlock' occurs when the weapons fall within the range of one another. Imagine two machineguns with 200 meter range with full 360 degree fire arcs for simplicity. If they were sited 300 meters apart their arcs would overlap, however they do not interlock because neither weapon lies within range of the other. If they were sited 100 meters apart they would interlock because they lie within the range of each other.
There are finer distinctions; weapons have optimum, effective, and extreme ranges. Depending on the nation probably depends on when each would classify positions as interlocking as extreme-range interlock is not nearly as useful as at optimum range.
Furthermore, as someone already stated, this tactic is not obsolete: static warfare has become obsolete, but interlocking fields of fire aren't static by definition. 
It's not even worth pointing out all the mistakes about what made interlock (actually static warfare) obsolete - although I should say that new tactics like creeping barrages and stormtroopers were making static warfare obsolete long before the tank, aeroplane, and proximity fuse matured. 
It's not worth pulling all the history books from my shelves, and rustling up a green machine doctrine book to cite (heck even if I got the latter, who's going to have another one to check?) but surely there's a wikipedian who can fix this mess? 118.209.75.130 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is incorrect 

message: This may be a matter of semantics and/or of terminology; however, proximity fuzes have been used in warfare at least since the Napoleonic era.  At that time, both land based and naval mortar batteries used projectiles packed with explosives that were detonated by a fuze that was cut to a specific length according to the estimated time that would expire from the time the fuze was ignited to the time the projectile was delivered to the target and the burn rate of the fuze. It is also my understanding that proximity fuzes were in use during WWI and were far more effective than the author suggests.  Certainly, many of the millions of shells that were fired detonated upon impact with the ground but many more detonated above ground level.  This is why the vast majority of combat casualties were the result of artillery fire.
Bingcarb (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is wrong. Timed fuses are not proximity fuses. They are timed. They go off after a time set before firing. They don't know or care whether they're close to anything at that time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.72.5 (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proximity Fuzes