Talk:Vultee Vengeance in Australian service/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape:

suggest linking divebomber in lead as it is pretty critical to understanding the subject
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the use of "Vengeances" to refer to the type of aircraft jars a bit. In some case cases I think it should just be "Vengeance" or "Vengeance aircraft", or "the Vengeance", in others it seems to work. I'm not sure what grammatical conundrum I'm alluding to, but it would bear some further attention, IMO. Perhaps I'm over-analysing...
- Yes, it is a bit awkward. However, it's the construction used in the official history and elswehere so should be OK. I've just run through the article to reduce the use of the term though. Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the lead would benefit from some explanation of the poor performance that led them to be dropped
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what was the reason the USAAF considered the Vengeance "unfit for combat"?
- Mainly because it had much better aircraft on hand. The USAAF also regarded dive bombing as being a bad idea (more later below). I've expanded this, but the source isn't very specific. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest linking military doctrine and force structure
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the numero signs should be consistent, either No. and Nos. or No and Nos
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest the compound modifier "simple to operate" be hyphenated for ease of reading per MOS:HYPHEN
- Done Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "RAAF was aware that dive bombing had proven to be an inefficient tactic" begs the questions, why and in what circumstances? What other divebombers were in RAAF service and why had they proved inefficient? Or was it lessons learned from the USAAF? It sort of also belies the later use of the aircraft in precision strikes in support of the Army at Shaggy Ridge, and knocking out the bridge. Also doesn't appear to stack up when you consider the Dauntless dive bomber, a very successful type
- This lesson was learned from international experiences: the long version of the story is that lots of air forces got excited by dive bombing after the German Junkers Ju 87 appeared highly successful in 1939-1940. However, subsequent combat experience demonstrated that the tactic was rather risky (as it involved the aircraft flying easily predicted flight paths at often well defended targets) and dedicated dive bombers were too specialised, and level bombing, gunfire and rockets were used support ground units for the remainder of the war. I presume that the continuing naval use of the tactic was due to the unsuitability of level bombing for attacking ships, and the similar problems associated with torpedo bombing (eg, flying low and straight at warships). I've added some material to give a flavour of this. Dive bombing and the Vengeance certainly had their uses, but neither was particularly effective. Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what bomb load they could carry and what other armament they had. Nothing too detailed, just an indication, epsaceially as it comes up in comparing them to Kittyhawk's later.
- Added Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
probably worth mentioning that Kenney was US
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest linking anti-aircraft warfare at first instance of anti-aircraft guns
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "scheduled onfor 5 March"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vengeance bombers of 21 Sqn RAAF at Nadzab 1944.jpg needs a US-PD tag
- Done Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review: I think that I may have now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. A pleasure. I was very interested to learn that Australia once operated a dive bomber, albeit briefly. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I enjoyed writing this article - covering one of the RAAF's most notorious lemons made an interesting change from the articles I've helped develop on some of its best aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]