Talk:Counter-sniper tactics

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

There are A LOT more companies than just red-owl that do counter-sniper stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.112.137 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a lot of pertinent information omitted

It goes in depth in a lot of parts, but if the original creator had access to that information, they could have filled it out a lot more. Could use a bit of expanding if the average joe could add things to this I'd say.

This article is rubbish. It is some kid who plays computer games. Military articles need close vetting by members of the military.

This entire article needs to be completely revised or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.128 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions of copyright infringement

The article's tone and style look (especially in some places) like copied from a (warfare?) handbook. Note for example the following sentence:

Call the bird: First you pick the fastest and most athletic squad member [...]

The article's originality should be verified, especially against the book cited in the references section. Whatever the resolution, a relevant note should probably be issued on the discussion page, and the style of the article should be changed to more encyclopedic-like, neutral point of view. –Akavel (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - except it is almost certianly from a computer game book. I can assure Wiki that almost all of the content is hoplessly wrong and doesnt meet curent military doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.128 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat Sensors!?

Who the hell played so much CoD 6 that they've posted that "tracking electronically" section just before "see also"? I guess this section doesn't need citation, it needs deletition.--46.138.170.210 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted. The complaint is a need for more references but deletion would be an absurd remedy. I have added links to source searches above. These show that there is an extensive literature about this. Editors wanting more references should please look there. Warden (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Attacking the Sniper

This section of the article doesn't have a single citation. Needs a serious re-write with citations or just remove it. Hopefully someone can add pertinent information that is directly from a reputable source. E.g. a military handbook, or small unit tactics handbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.38.34 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]