Talk:Air warfare of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

American air warfare of WW2[edit]

The articles point-of-view is so biased I don't think it can be repaired. Just change the name? 178.75.128.166 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. The article is not so biased. Were you looking for more about Finnish air battles? Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet is right. The article tries to cover all the major nations in proportion to their importance in the air war, and also to compare them with each other. So there is no bias that anyone has identified. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Mostly looking for more coverage of Eastern Front air war, Germany vs. Russia. This extremely superficially despite the fact that it consumed most of the German air resouces and all of Russia's. And yeah, minor power such as Finland could be covered too, but not before the Eastern Front is. 178.75.128.166 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources in English, which give very little coverage to the air war in the East. Rjensen (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That might be so (but of course there are plenty of sources in English about the Eastern Front and it as been covered in great detail and with excelent references in other articles), but it doesn't change the fact that this article is very biased. Either it should be tagged as such (American/English-speaking centric), corrected to reflect reality of air warfare in WWII (a lot of work) or the title should be changed to reflect the article. As it is it doesn't do Wikipedia justice. 178.75.128.166 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it is not true that the air war on the Eastern front is well covered in English. There's no point in trying to please some anonymous critic who claims to know all sorts of good sources but refuses to divulge them. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking any one to please me. Im pointing out obvious flaws in the article. Its nice to notice that you have changed your view from "The article tries to cover all the major nations in proportion to their importance in the air war, and also to compare them with each other" to "In my opinion it is not true that the air war on the Eastern front is well covered in English" and "Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources in English, which give very little coverage to the air war in the East". The latter might be true, what do I care. But my arguments still stand; the article has bias and sould be fixed in one of the ways I suggested. If your argument on the lack of sources is true, then shouln't the article be tagged as such (American/English-speaking centric), then some Russian and German-speaking authors might get interested? 178.75.128.166 (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is an unbiased summary of what the Reliable Sources in English have said. That is what Wikipedia requires. Anon's complaints are based on the false assumption that there exists high quality English material on the Eastern air war that is underutilized--but the critic has repeatedly failed to identify these mystery sources. Rjensen (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm basically just just some other anonymous guy, but I think this article is biased towards the US.
  • The Airforce section it opens with has more on the US airforce than all the other mentioned countries put together.
  • The "Air Crew training" section and "Logistics" sections only talk about the US and Japan.
  • "Close Air Support" is just about the US (and somehow manages to not mention Blitzkreig). In fact everything under Doctrine and Technology seems to be US based, with Japan occasionally mentioned for comparison purposes. No actual technology mentioned a far as I can see either.
  • The "German Secret Weapons" section takes the US view entirely of Operation CROSSBOW - the actual article on that provides a more balanced view.
  • The Pacific War is the first mentioned specific campaign - despite occurring later in both time and alphabetically.

I could go on - the North African campaign apparently only started when the US got there, apparently. I don't believe that this is a fair reflection of the available English sources. Are there no sources in English that mention that the German focus on tactical bombing over strategic bombing was a vital part in blitzkreig and their initial success in France? Really I think the whole article could do with a fair bit of reworking - at the moment it lacks a clear structure, and keeps on going to unnecessary detail on specifics. Do we need to now details about Midway (for example) beyond the fact the US won and that it crippled Japan's naval and air power in the pacific? There is a specific article on Midway. But there is no mention of how advanced the Japanese aircraft were (particularly the Zero) only to be rapidly overtaken in the technology race by the US. I know I know - I'm free to change it myself. But I'm not an expert, don't have the time, and I'm not very good at writing. I don't think that precludes criticism. Sorry it's not as constructive as it perhaps could be, but well, limited time. And of course how I think the article should be written is probably not a good way - but just because I'm not a chef doesn't mean I can't tell when something doesn't taste nice. MojoJoJones (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I respect the effort of those who've worked on the article before me, but I also think it is heavily biased in perspective. Not POV, but perspective... Azx2 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
the article follows wikipedia guidelines in that it reflects the reliable secondary sources, which are much more numerous on the US than on other countries. If favorite topics get not enough attention, the solution is to add material from reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpretation and paid link citation in "China, 1937-1944" section[edit]

There's a post on Reddit that misinterprets this section. The article speaks of "an aggressive air campaign against Japan using Chinese bases and American pilots wearing Chinese uniforms.[33]" The Flying Tigers attacked Japanese forces in China and Burma, not in Japan. They were there at the invitation of the Chinese, who had already been invaded, so it's probably not appropriate to call the campaign "aggressive". The citation used is only a partial link, and the full article is behind a pay wall, so it's not possible to confirm the part about Chinese uniforms, but that's not often mentioned in the commonly accepted history, which puts it in doubt. Nosecohn (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Washington's plan (approved by FDR) was for the Flying Tigers to bomb Japanese cities in 1941 (before Pearl harbor)--which finally came about in 1944 when the B-29s arrived under AAF control. As for uniforms the Flying Tigers article has a photo of Chennault wearing Chinese insignia.Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

This article is not written proportionately to the importance of the various events it covers. The Battle of Britain, perhaps the single most important air battle in history, the first defeat ever inflicted on Nazi Germany, the first battle in history to be fought only in the air, and a battle that lasted several months involving several of the most famous aircraft ever built and which represents perhaps the pivotal turning point of the war, is only given a couple of paragraphs, most of which is cursorily written and inaccurate. I have attempted to correct some of this, but it still does not seem enough, particularly given the attention paid to the pacific campaigns et al.

Needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.238.32 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect in so many ways, first of all the most important air battle and the main turning point of world war II was the Battle of Midway in which involved entire fleets and multiple aircraft carriers. the battle of midway inflicted irreparable harm to the imperial japanese fleet and most important their aircraft carriers. on another note. you overemphasis the importance of the spitfire, when the mustang, zero, hellcat, corsair, and lighting were all more well known for both their performance and unique design. (50.68.14.50 (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

Success[edit]

This article says, "Kamikaze attacks were highly effective ... 4000 kamikaze sorties sank 38 US ships and damaged 368 more, killing 4,900 sailors..." Wait that means only 1% of the Kamikaze attacks actually damaged a ship, and the ratio of US deaths to kamikaze deaths is 1.225, of 5 to 4. That this is "highly effective" is the main reason I am reading this article.

The Tuskegee Airmen article says, "15,533 combat sorties, 112 German aircraft destroyed in the air, another 150 on the ground..." A total rate of one destroyed German aircraft in 60 sorties. These numbers say that you take off 138 times for each aircraft destroyed in the air!! A success rate of 0.7% !

I have seen similar numbers for other fighter units. Compare 1% or 0.7% for the above air combat to the Battle of Gettysburg. The Battle of Gettysburg was a ground action. In it 20% of the Union soldiers managed to kill or wound an enemy. These foot soldiers were 20 times more effective than the above airmen.

Those of us who know nothing about air warfare get the impression from popular media (movies) that every other time you fly you shoot down something. Thus ignorant me, I am surprised by these numbers, and cannot quite get myself to believe them.

Are these air combat numbers correct?!?!

Nick Beeson (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Reliable Sources. "The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that "the kamikaze was the single most effective air weapon developed by the Japanese in World War II. That the kamikazes were effective is true." [Proceedings US Navy Institute vol 83]; "Kamikaze attacks were much more effective as compared to conventional attacks. But the main problem was that to be really effective, the Kamikaze sorties needed experienced pilots to guide them" [Kamikaze by Albert Axell, Hideaki Kase - 2002]; "Their effectiveness was severe" [Cooper, War in Pacific Skies (2003) p 160]; "The kamikaze was certainly the most effective weapon left to the Japanese navy" [Jackson, Lucky Lady: The World War II Heroics of the USS Santa Fe and Franklin (2003) p 309]; "The kamikaze plane will prove to be the most effective anti-ship weapon of World War II" [Sweetman American naval history (2002)p 182.] etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Typical slant[edit]

This article has the typical Anglo-German/Americo-Japanese slant of English-language histriography. There is no mention of Hungarian, Bulgarian, Belgian, Yugoslavian, Australian, Dutch or Brazilian air forces. Italy, Romania and Finland get only mentions, and Canada is barely better off. France is mentioned a lot, but not its air force, either 3rd Republic, Vichy or Free. Ditto for Poland. The Soviets are perhaps under-represented, but at least they get a section of their own. I can understand neglecting Bulgaria and Brazil. The sources are not abundant, but Italy? France? These were hardly inconsequential actors. 216.8.149.38 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Questionable statement at the end of the RAF section on bomber command[edit]

"Before 1944, however, the main German industrial targets were out of range, so the RAF bombers concentrated on military and transportation targets in France and Belgium.[9][10]"

This might have been true of fighters, but RAF bombers operated deep in Germany from the beginning of the war. It was the bombing of Berlin in 1940 that caused Hitler to divert his Blitzkrieg from airfields to cities, thereby losing the Battle of Britain.96.54.42.226 (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Add table of destroyed cities[edit]

Hey guys, a table of the destroyed cities like in the german wiki would be nice: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftkrieg_im_Zweiten_Weltkrieg#Deutsches_Reich --K4210 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)