Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Strategic Air Command B-52 Stratofortress Losses in the Vietnam War[edit]

This B-52 bomber "lost in combat chart" was made for one primary reason: Too many "properly sourced" references have been stating different numbers of B-52s lost in the war. Some say 30, some say 31, some state only 15 were shot down, and some say 16. There are other examples, but those few samples will suffice. To settle this issue once and for all, those B-52 losses were documented by Serial Number, Date, and Cause. And of course, they are clearly referenced. To my surprise, and I never knew this, and no one bothered to research it, one B-52 was damaged by a NVAF MiG-21 then it was downed by a SAM. Maybe the NVAF was right after all, maybe one of their -21s did down a B-52, that the USAF flatly and adamantly denies! Interesting, that a MiG-21 should strike a -52 with it's Atoll missile and almost within seconds a SAM hits it? Those -21s were specifically trained to intercept the -52s, and were specifically trained to stay out of the SAM kill zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"the USAF flatly and adamantly denies" Sounds like some sort of sinister govertnment conspiracy, like the Roswell Incident! In reality, probably some PA officer somewhere didn't have any difinitive information after some 30 or 40 years. Even at the time, it's dark, there's confusion, and even the crew (if any of them survived) weren't sure what happened. Did a similar thing after the Gulf War with Iraqi aerial losses and there were a few that weren't possible to square with all of hte conflicting points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.152.76 (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
See Scott Speicher, as always no AF in the world would admit a air-to air loss if not absolutely indispensable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of USAF B-52 losses in the Vietnam War 1965–1973[edit]

Individual combat losses are not really notable and this table doesnt add much to the article, suggest we remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, overly detailed and out of balance. The B-52 has participated in several other wars/operations that do not have loss tables. A similar table in the Northrop F-5 article was removed for these basic reasons. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I concure, it is undue weight and unbalanced - if the other sections don't get one, it shouldn't. I'm fine with a summary statement. Kyteto (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see some comparable B52 losses. But, I believe no other B52s have been lost to direct enemy action since the Vietnam War. Consequently, there can be no other sections to receive such data. I do note with interest however, that at least 3 B52s had been blown out of the skies in December 1972 during the Linebacker II campaign, which is also known as the Christmas Bombing operation; allegedly by MiG-21s:
  • B52 serial number 56-0622 was heavily damaged by a -21 then destroyed by a SAM.
  • B52 serial numbers 56-0674, 56-0584, 56-099, and 56-0605 were knocked down on 26 thru 28 December 1972.
Those dates coincide with NVAF MiG-21 claims, although listed in the table as SAM kills, of course. During the era of the cold war it would not be acceptable for the USAF to admit that a relatively modern interceptor such as the MiG-21 could knock down the mightiest bomber ever made. So it could be a convenient coincidence that those B52s had been recorded as downed by SAMs, instead of MiGs. The chart gives information that is more accessible to researchers and writers, rather then deciphering the narrative portions, which at times appear to be somewhat confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.40.114 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 26 November 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Disagree: Many wiki articles contain tables, this B52 article contains at least 3; Aircraft deliveries, Aircraft production, and Cost per aircraft, in addition to the Operational combat losses. Of those 4 total, what the B52 did in its only war against a determined enemy...and for the first and only time against the latest technology of Soviet Ground Air Defense and high altitude interceptors, not to mention Soviet bomber interception tactics ("one pass, haul ass") is probably more notable than how many non-combat roles it participated in.
  • The Operational Combat Loss table, as is probably the intention of most tables, allows readers to take in information with one sweep of the eyes, rather than having to fight their way through non-combat data. This OCL table shows the who, what, when, how, and why of the Strategic Air Commands B-52 in it's only war in which it suffered losses against Soviet Surface to Air Missiles and modern high altitude interceptors, in this case, the MiG 21.162.194.95.201 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with retention of the table. Nearly every Wiki article has one, and I see no difference between this one and any other wiki table. As a matter of fact, this particular table appears to be more informative than the average combat aircraft table that I have yet seen. I might add, other wiki tables appear to be of less importance in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.6.139 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015‎ (UTC)
As has been said before clearly not every wiki article has a list of combat losses and I suspect if any exist then it is an oversight, combat losses are rarely notable for a military aircraft just doing its job. We already have sufficient information in the text about the B-52 combat role. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the table is going to be kept, then can the dates be corrected? Several don't make sense. In addition, I can't find the reference that many of these quote as source. Norman21 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Even more reason for the table to go. To the IPers above, this discussion is only about the table of losses not other unrelated tables. I'll remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusing range in lede[edit]

The last sentence in the lede is confusing, but so is the following cited source:

The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling.

What exactly is a "similar strike mission"? Is the range at 150 metre altitude 2,400 nautical miles ( I assume yes)? What exactly is the "could count on only a" bit meant to convey? Does it mean after the low altitude stretch, the B52 needed refueling and could only continue 6,300 nm at some unspecified altitude? Or does it first fly 6,300 nm, then get refueled and is limited to 2,400 at low altitude? Can anyone help clarify this? -84user (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It think "similar" just means another nuclear strike mission, with the last 2400 nm flown at very low level rather than high level it can only go a total of 6300 nm (base to target, but even then would need to be refuelled at some point) if it kept at high level all the way it could go to a total of 9000 nm (base to target without refuelling). MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense about thermonuclear weapons[edit]

"It was the first air-dropped thermonuclear weapon." What?? Hiroshima, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.42.217 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs, not thermonuclear weapon, which is a fusion or hydrogen bomb. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable B-52 accidents[edit]

I see the recent B-52 crash at Guam affected (=destroyed) a B-52 wich was one of six airplanes sent from Minot AFB for a short stage at Guam. The aforementioned list was completed with this event. Could the airplanes serial be found and added? I did not find the info anywhere; but I would know, since my cherished 1:72 model, Nº 61040, the last one to roll out from Boeing around 1966, was (short time after to Captn Hollands accident at Fairchild AFB) reassigned to Minot AFB so there is a chance that "mine" could be the one now missing. Best regards and thanks 190.113.164.2 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an accident that is really notable enough to be be included in the article, old aircraft fails to takeof nobody hurt. The aircraft is possibly 60-0047. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've got the point. But just for the record, B-52 fifty years after they was made, still are the best ande most reliable war machines in the States, and the reminding planes (about 70 or some) are kept updated to extend lifespan until 2040. Amazing...

Thanks for the data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.164.2 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC) PS Excuse my english. I wanted to say "Remaining" instead of "reminding".

The B-52H that was destroyed at Guam on Wednesday May 18, 2016 was tail number 60-0047 and named "Neanderthal" at the time of the crash. The loss of a 56 year old military aircraft with no injuries is not notable and I will remove it from the article again if no one objects. Samf4u (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Samf4u I object, and think the crash is important to add. Note, notability does not to contents of articles.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as there's no consensus here to keep it in the article. Note that WP:Notability only applies to articles, but the word "notability" is still used in the English language for concepts other than WP:N. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I was minded to restore, but noticed there was a discussion here. IMHO, as the aircraft was written off, AIRCRASH is met. I probably wouldn't support a stand-alone article, but it is certainly worth a mention. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure we have invoked "hull loss" for military aircraft in the main article, if we had a stand-alone List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress then it would apply but not here were we should only list the more notable accidents which for military normally means it has to have killed something or hit something notable. A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types) clearly something we dont normally do in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not know about WPCRASH. The reason I thought the the B-52 loss was important, is because the number of planes is small, with no new B-52s being built, and no actual replacement aircraft for the B-52 mission.

Also, a suggestion, it would help explain in WPCRASH the reason for not listing all crashes, "A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types)" per above. Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Obscenity[edit]

There is no need to spell out the anecdotal meaning of BUFF.. this site is of possible interest to juveniles and don't need this bad language.. Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying... I changed this twice and but it was put back to its crude form almost immediately.. I believe the author is doing this as a matter of personal principle without regard to the age of the reader... Chrispaul1 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia is not Censored is Policy on English Wikipedia. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
"Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying..." and any juveniles too... - Mcremp (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Still about VN[edit]

Even if USAF do not admit any losses to MiG-21, why the hell the B-52 kills are accepted and mentioned, while the VPAF don't confirm them? So, if USAF is 'always' right, is it a NPOV statement? The facts are, that USAF claims two MiGs and no AA losses, while the VPAF claims two B-52s and no AA losses. Why the articles says only the USAF version? I think this should be corrected, no matter if it is more or less verifiable. After all, who says that USAF spoke true about this kills? The Wikipedia should be neutral, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point here have you read the bit about losses over vietnam In total, 31 B-52s were lost during the war, which included 10 B-52s shot down over North Vietnam. Are you saying that these figures are wrong ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Costs[edit]

Not sure I understand the encyclopedic value of the cost table for individual bits of eaach model, propose it can be removed as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In service date[edit]

The article says: "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.". Boeing says "The first B-52A flew Aug. 5, 1954." http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b-52-stratofortress.page. The previous flights seem to have been of the YB-52. Anyone see any reason why this correction should not be made? Jim Whitaker (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The in service data is when a military aircraft is declared operational, such as Initial operating capability. This is not tied to a first flight. --Finlayson (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)