Talk:Gunship

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation 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 task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force

Sci-fi example

There are several ships called gunships in the Star Wars universe (Corellian Gunships being the most common); why does the article reference a gunboat, which in Star Wars is a distinct class (fighter size as opposed to capital ships)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.173.190 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article Revision

I fixed the article somewhat. -Attack Helicopters are frequently refered to as gunships. Even wikipedia's own Attack helicopter article refers to them as such in the first sentence. -The V-22 is not a gunship. It has a single machine gun on the back loading ramp for self defence purposes, hardly a canidate for a gunship. SaderBiscut (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed w/ Gunship

I think the armed helicopter article would be better suited for inclusion in the gunship article, and would help in added quality content to it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a gunship is not the same thing as an armed helicopter not helped by this article probably using a wrong definition. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Gunship" is a broad term that overlaps, but does not supercede. "armed helicopter". Basic definition in this article is uncited. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not the same subject. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, you know what is meant by an armed helicopter. It even says, "or helicopter gunship". A Black Hawk is armed too, but it's not an armed helicopter because it has defensive weapons. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all gunships are not helicopters. It's better to cover details separately, and the Armed helicopter has a lot of that. It's fine as-is, so please stop badgering. - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can still have a subsection for helicopters and one for fix-wing. Then it's all in one article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Helicopter section will be 2-3 times as long as the rest of the article - a perfect case for splitting! And we're still waiting for those authoritative reliable sources that differenciate "gunships" from "attack helicopters", and equate them completely with "armed helicopters", for which we don't have sources either. And frankly, I don't expect any to be provided, as single definition from an authoritative source doens't exist. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that not all Attack helicopters are Gunships just as all planes that attack ground personal and tanks are not gunships, It's more a matter of what type of weapons are standard and how & what those weapons on the craft are used which determines it's role more than what type of aircraft it is ! 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.195.254 (talk)

Done I've introduced additional sources, to clarify the gunship definition in two separate fields: airplanes and helicopters. I hope this will reduce the amount of original research received by this article. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that the list of examples of gunships, contains most helicopters, given this discussion. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-WW II History?

I've been looking into the history of gunships, and unless the information I've found is inaccurate, I think there's some interwar history that hasn't been included that should be. I've found essentially the same information from multiple sources. There is some very minor variation in the specifics of the history but it's mostly consistent. Essentially what I've discovered is that there was some early non-combat testing of a basic concept gunship in late 1926 '27. According to what I've read, an Army 1st Lieutenant Fred Nelson, who was stationed at Brook field, proposed engaging ground targets from an aircraft with a machine gun mounted on the aircraft while performing a pylon turn, and he demonstrated the practicality of the concept when he mounted a .30 caliber machine gun to his left wing and, aided by a crude aiming device, was able to successfully engage a ground target. According to essentially all the sources I've seen, the flight took place in '27, but some say the proposal was in late '26 and the flight itself in '27, while others say it all happened in '27. According to all the sources I've found on the matter, his idea was rejected for being "too radical." I haven't been able to find reports of this from any primary source (like the National Archives), but I'll try to look into speaking with actual aviation historians and stuff. I'm worried that any records of the flight might have been destroyed in the '73 fire. I've looked briefly into what the National Archives has, but I didn't find anything. If anyone can find further information on this topic or knows anything more about it, I would love to hear. DaneThePlane (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Douglas AC-47.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]