Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Fired for treason

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/

Notable here? Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No - although he was not actually fired for treason just for using the word in a speech, not the same thing, and has little relevance to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A-10 export?

Boeing Cejas revealed plans of export Modernized A 10 for International customers. both Flightglobal , and Janes , I already created the Export Column about the Export, and Indian Plans to acquire the A 10, with two ref Links. If anything which is not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia please delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJEEVJINO (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Ayotte letter

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/deeply-disturbing-senate-demands-answers-as-air-force-attempts-back-door-a-10-retirement/

This is BLP, so I can't add it myself. As I understand it the issues are:

• Decreased depot maintenance funding
• Lack of aircraft for testing squadron
• Unauthorized retirement of aircraft

Hcobb (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Air Force gives up on current retirement push

[1] The UASF has now "indefinitely delayed" retiring the A-10 fleet, which means this episode of trying to retire it is done for a while. With that, can we cut down the massive Proposed Retirement section? America789 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the front of the right wheel cover black?

This seems to be a change from first fielding, but the article doesn't seem to cover it. Hcobb (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to give us a more clues as to what you have seen or what you are on about, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Best guess on my part is it's an electromagnetically passive panel with a radar detection sensor behind it. I just wrote Lockheed Martin's website for a definitive answer. Actually in my search it became apparent that there should be a section in the article about the ever upgrading sensors on the warthog. I'll get back if I get a reply. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you are talking about the black dielectric panel at the front of the starboard wheel sponson, I could not really understand what the color of a bit of fabric that goes over the wheels when the aircraft is parked up was relevant. That said Doyna Yar is probably right it was part of the A-10C upgrade and is probably ESM related. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Overquoting

Recent changes have introduced massive, paragraph long quoted sections. Not only is the level of detail inappropriate and overwhelming for an encyclopedia article, they also introduce a serious copyvio issue in that the level of quoting may exceed that that is permissible by fair use. It needs to be massively trimmed back and rewritten.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The longest quote that I can see is three sentences. If there are any specific cases of copyvio let me know. I'm not too familiar with the exact details of the policy. I tried to be fairly careful.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The A-10C section that you added consists almost entirely of quotes, mainly from a single source (which is inaccessible). The total length of material copied from a source and the proportion of the original source copied or closely paraphrased matters when considering whether we are in a copyvio situation, not just the length of individual quotes (and in the context of the section, even three sentences in total from the same source is probably too long). This section needs to be rewritten to remove the extensive quoting to avoid breaching what is allowable under fair use.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why I reverted Fnlayson's edit only to get reverted by BilCat

fnlayson performed an edit removing a few random things. The mention that the A-10 is a single seat aircraft in the lede. I don't know what that's about. He made some minor changes to the bit I added explaining CAS in the lede that I don't really care too much about one way or the other. The bit covered by his edit summary is where he cuts out my summary of the A-10's laudable performance in desert storm and the air force's acceptance of the A-10 concept. I don't really get this bit either. It's about as uncontroversial as things get. As far as I know there really is no other side to this. If I cared I'd defend the use of the word distinguished or something like it, but honestly I don't care, so if someone offers a more "neutral" wording, who cares? But the facts are that after DS the AF accepted the A-10 and abandoned it's attempts of abandoning dedicated CAS aircraft. I feel it's important for there to be a general overview of the A-10 and it's history in the intro, so I feel that that should stay in the intro. Then he moves around the listing of conflicts the A-10's been involved in. He took out the context of the evolution of cas and how the air force developed the a-10, the first dedicated cas plane. I'd like to know his reasoning for that. Also why that wasn't in the edit summary and why he didn't break up the rather large edit making things rather untidy. Yea the wording on the development of the gau 8 and the design of the a-10 around the gau-8's not great. After fnlayson's edit I was working on that and I came up with a wording that I think works. And fnlayson got rid of the one sentence description of A-10 upgrades and the current state of the A-10, which I don't understand and which fnlayson's edit summary doesn't provide any insight into. Not really as ideal as I'd like things to be if I'm brutally honest. He seems to prefer limited equipment on austere runways vs limited facilities... I could go either way on that one. Obviously bilcat's reversion of my revert is a sticky wicket as well. I'm sure he has some sort of reason for reverting a revert.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I read through your changes. They seem to fine to me. I don't think people should have to discuss everything on a talk page before making changes. So reverted it back to yours. If other's disagree with SPECIFIC parts of your change then they are free to edit them. That's how Wikipedia works. War (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's one example. "The A-10 was highly effective in Operation Desert Storm, the American intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait convincing the Air Force that the concept of cheap, simple CAS aircraft, and the A-10 itself were sound." Where exactly is the source for this? There was no source after that or anything like that cited in the body of the article. The single-seat text is not exactly right and more accurately explained in the 2nd paragraph already. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this material: it's too detailed for the lead, and marred by inaccuracies and sub-standard grammar. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur, obviously. Fnlayson's a good copy editor and summarizer, and has a sense of what belongs in a Lead section. He did give a sensible and understandable, if succinct, edit summary, and thus I restored his edits. He's improved my edits many times, and occasionally restored text that I'd reverted, usually improving too. I trust his judgment in such matters. - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, for one, the lede's wrong. There was no A-10B. A pre-production airframe was modified to be a prototype, the YA-10B. It was briefly test flown and that was it. So yes, the YA-10B is a two seater, the A-10, though, is not, never has been, and no A-10 has even been modified to seat two as a prototype. Also, "Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16." Right there. Sort of hiding in plain sight. Plus... it's the entire narrative of the paragraph, although I suppose it could be argued that it could possibly be made more explicit. I was actually trying to broaden the lede. Expand it so that it covers things like, the current status of the A-10. The history of the A-10. Simple things like, how many seats are there.

Maybe fnlayson would deign to explain why he removed the mention of the A-10's performance in DS, and what argument he had against the contention I posted earlier "But the facts are that after DS the AF accepted the A-10 and abandoned it's attempts of abandoning dedicated CAS aircraft. I feel it's important for there to be a general overview of the A-10 and it's history in the intro, so I feel that that should stay in the intro." rather than... I'm not quite sure what is argument is. He's trying to argue that a single small part of his edit is justified because he thinks it's not supported in the article when it is? How is that anything more than a... well... misguided argument against a single point? And, looking at the current version, it look like fnlayson's undermined the only point he was trying to make by adding a version of that sentence back in. Honestly I'm pretty confused. Plus, wrong about the only other point fnlayson made. So... 0 for 2? Wrong on all accounts? Do I win in a forefeit then or what? I'm not really clear on how this is working. In retrospect, I suppose, fnlayson's argument didn't address the topic at hand, instead, focused on two specific points. Then it sort of blew both arguments. And here we are. I guess the consensus seems to be that the one paragraph on desert storm should be expanded, and should have more analysis. Was that the point fnlayson was trying to make? Has that what all this hassle and effort has been about? Next time you want me to expand a section, maybe just sort of ask directly. Or, what the hell? Maybe add something to an article. Expand an article. Add content to the lede of an article. Improve the lede. Pick up a shovel, a hammer. Put the hammer to the nail, you know? Build.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's some more material on the 2-seater version: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87978main_H-1232.pdf (page 89). Sorry I don't have the time to be a wikipedian lately, so feel free to bring it in the article. or not. Thx to all you guys anyway.

Possible copyvio in the A-X section, or the book is using wording from this article.

I was looking up a source because it's easier to complain than to put in effort I suppose and found that the A-X section might be possible copyright violation, or the book could be using text from this article. I'd actually be surprised if it's copyvio, but who knows "The Aviation History" Relly Victoria Petrescu, Florian Ion Petrescu BoD – Books on Demand, 2013 Around page 29TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-assess GA status

Pretty much everything about this article is screaming re-assess GA status to me. The operational history section's a joke. Tags are popping up everywhere. There are plenty of other problems. Oh, and it seems to have come into vogue to trash the prose of the article to boot. It looks like there's no option other than re-assessment and almost certain delisting.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Community Reassessment

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1

Why are editors inserting an OR narrative that the A-10 design was a revolutionary tabula rasa design?

Can someone tell me where this OR narrative is coming from? How did the US Air Force develop the A-10 from fast jet fighters and fighter bombers like the F-100, F-104, and F-4? Fast jets have small guns, they go fast, they tend to have swept wings, they fly fast at high altitudes. How did the air force develop close air support doctrine utilizing none of those things in the 1960s from apparently whole cloth? Why is the focus of the A-10 not on dive bombing, a method that had been developed of dropping bombs on small moving targets, or troop positions? Why does the A-10 have an armored cockpit when the original A-1, the F-100, the F-104, and F-4 don't have armored cockpits? Why did the air force choose a 30mm gun? Was there any experimentation in using different guns in close air support before the summer of love? The A-10 is slow, but did that lack of speed become a problem over time? Why did an air force enamored of fast, high altitude jets with no guns suddenly develop a slow, low altitude jet with a huge gun? What was the Air Force's experience with tactical bombing and CAS in recent conflicts like korea and vietnam? The A-10 was developed as a cost effective, updated replacement of the circa 1945 A-1. Why don't we strip the article of all mention of the A-1? The A-37? Is that a motorway from london to birmingshiretondon on essex-wye? The A-7 was examined as the production line was still up and running. The air force examined using the A-7 to replace the A-1 but chose not to. Why? Was the A-7 not enough like the F-100, F-104, and F-4? Why was the air force afraid that the army chyenne could threaten funding for the air force's fast jets? The Air force is looking at something at least as effective as the 1945 A-1 skyraider in the mid-late 1960s? What? Were they just listening to a lot of "timewarp", or reading too much HG welles? And where did this come from? Suddenly at the very end of the history section the air force has decided to do something that the article hasn't done anything at all to explain that's come completely and totally out of left field. What does a 1945 A-1 have to do with F-4s? F-100s? F-104s? Didn't the air force replace the F-4 with the F-15? What article is this? Where is this narrative coming from? Has anyone considered just randomly removing whole paragraphs from the article to see if that improves it? They have? Good. Is it working? A big problem we've identified with this article is that it has poor coverage of a lot of the details of the A-10. We've been cutting a lot of stuff. I think we just need to keep cutting more and more stuff, and that will make the coverage better and better. Someone asked me the other day why they couldn't find any more information on wikipedia about the A-10s that he'd read about that were deployed to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, and asked me if this is how websites like wikipedia and history in general forgets things like the role the A-10 played in the middle east conflicts of the early 20th century. I think we should report this guy to a aviation project friendly admin. He's clearly a dangerous subversive.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Care to be more concise? In that large single-paragraph block of text, I cannot tell what your specific grievance is, or with whom. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are multiple editors removing content about the history of tactical/cas aircraft since, say, the A-1 was introduced in 1945? How american tactical/cas aircraft evolved from the A-1 to it's successor the A-10. The wider history of tactical/cas aircraft worldwide. The A-10 draws from the A-1 but it also draws from other planes. Where did the armored bathtub concept originate? Why did tactical air combat shift from dive bombing to strafing with large, say, 30mm cannons? How did the AF settle on the 30mm requirement? That's the general thrust. Also, these removals don't seem to be addressing the problems this article has of having poor coverage of things like the role of the A-10 in different conflicts it was involved in.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, your post heading "questions" are so mixed with what I assume is sarcasm that it's hard times tell what exactly your issues are. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and we don't need to go in depth on the whole history of a general topic (such as CAS or military rifles) in every article about a specific aircraft/weapon or sub-type. I concur with User:Maury Markowitz's removals per his edit summaries, and have reverted your restorations. Btw, there's a very good reason why we don't cover "the role the A-10 played in the middle east conflicts of the early 20th century" -- the A-10 didn't exist then! Also, restoring text related to WWII aircraft does nothing to help coverage of recent conflicts. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You think that a paragraph that says that the A-X design specified a 30mm based on the cannon birds of the luftwaffe that germany developed from experience of their condor division in the spanish civil war which motivated them to switch the focus of their attack aircraft tactics from bombing with dive bombers to strafing with aircraft with progressively larger and larger cannons? That's what you think is the whole history of a general topic? Basically one sentence that directly explains the context of the A-X design requirement? Particularly when this reflects the opinion of reliable sources? Side note, why does the F4 article bother putting the F4 phantom in context? Don't they know that there are only so many ones and zeros? What is this? Some sort of encyclopedia? Why leave information about unrelated fast, high altitude fighters while removing information about the A-1 skyraider, one of the chief influences on the design of the A-10, and the aircraft that A-X designs were measured against? What influence did the F-4 have on the A-10? Did the A-X measure proposed designs against the F-4? I noticed how much you look at edit summaries and how little you concern yourself about the actual content that you do and don't rollback. I don't know why you're bringing up military rifles, but now that you bring that up, it seems clear that there are serious flaws with the assault rifle article. Maybe something you failed to notice in your study of edit summaries, something you seem to have decided is less important than your hasty rollback duties. It also seems like the typo article could do with some of your attention. You could familiarize yourself with the concept. "Also, restoring text related to WWII aircraft does nothing to help coverage of recent conflicts." If you'll read what I wrote you'll find that you got the wrong end of the stick. What I said is that maury removing information about the 1945 skyraider did nothing to improve the article. Maybe you can read the actual edits and if you do actually want to contest the consensus that existed until you decided apparently based on edit summaries to rollback everything blindly then I guess we're headed to third opinion or dispute resolution or something. Now that you mention it though, that assault rifle article is an absolute mess. So I guess there's still a chance that I'll be able to get something done in the near future.

Again, a long string of questions, coupled with sarcasm and snide remarks, only confuses what your actually trying to say, along with TLDNR. So if I'm confused about what you wrote, even after re-reading it, duh. If you think the article needs more coverage on recent conflicts, then take productive steps to address those issues, like doing some research and adding content. If that isn't something you're willing or able to do, that's fine, but there are better ways to address this than what you've done here so far. If you can't be succinct and civil in what you're saying/asking, the DR isn't really going to help you much. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's it? You don't understand why the su-25 article has, for instance, "(shturmovaya) aviation during the 1940s"? Why the su-25 article puts the su-25 in a historical context, why it puts it's development in context, rather than explicitly taking it out of context as maury did? Why the f-4 phantom article has a origins section, and the origin for the f-4 fighter bomber focus on fighter bombers the way that maury edited the a-10 background section of the a-10 attack aircraft to focus on the f-4 fighter bomber. Fair enough. Do you have a preference for third opinion or drn? In my experience third opinion doesn't generate any third opinions, and is useless, which isn't to say it's any less effective than drn.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Again with the wall of questions. I get the feeling you're not trying to be understood, but rather to so overwhelm us so that we'll just go away. I frankly have better ways of wasting my time than spending it at DRN. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've listed it at third opinion. See you at drn in a few days.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I won't be there. If you won't listen here, why should there be any different? - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

First off, TeeTylerToe, you might want to read WP:TLDR. More importantly, I removed this entry from WP:3O because, frankly, you said yourself that multiple editors are involved; and 3O is for disputes between only two editors (also, why did you even list this at 3O when above you said that you are against that forum?). On that same note, I also wouldn't advise listing this at WP:DRN because it appears that this issue had been resolved before you even got involved, so this is thus borderline pointy judgment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Maury didn't respond to the talk page discussion. Only BilCat and I seem to be involved in the dispute. What point am I trying to make?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe, perhaps next time you might actually inform me that such a post was made? I cannot respond to posts I am not aware of. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Were BilCat's blind rollbacks so fast you didn't even know that your edits were disputed?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of your post on this talk page because you did not inform me of your post on the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So why did you remove the context of the A-10's predecessor, the WW2 A-1, which the A-X used to measure designs against, and the context of the development of attack aircraft doctrine which it seems was mostly formulated before and during world war 2? All the sources I've read about the A-10 talk about general the general tactics and design of the A-10 drawing from world war 2 cannon birds which saw use by pretty much every country in world war 2. They talk about how the pilot's armored tub coming from ww2 experience. They talk about the development of the hs 129, and later ju-87g with their large cannons. The british mosquito, the american air cobra. The soviet il-2. Maybe that could be put in a history section that talks about the influence of the world war 2 A-1 on it's direct successor, the A-10, and where sources say the A-10 got design elements from sources other than the A-1, like the cockpit armor tub, and the 30mm cannon.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the article's title be changed to reflect the merger between Lockheed Martin and Fairchild Republic? It would be more accurate. Jak474 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, when did this merger/acquisition happen? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

22 April 1996.American474 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, only a two year wait for a reply! - the aircraft was built well before Lockheed Martin were involved so the article should not be renamed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Roger, and sorry; been really busy with school. American474 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jak474: Lockheed Martin didn't even exist in 1994, the merger not occurring until 1995. Fairchild Aircraft continued to exist past the point, and eventually went defunct in 1999. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, LM purchased the remains of Fairchild Systems in its purchase of a division of Loral Corporation in 1996. Fairchild Systems was descended from Fairchild Camera and Instrument, which had long been separate from the Fairchild Aircraft company, which included Fairchild Republic. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you for the update, I didn't realize Lockheed Martin acquired Fairchild republic, although I have had fleeting inquiries of what happened to the A-10 manufacturers, anyhow, if Lockheed wasn't involved in the production at all , I can't see adding it in would serve any purpose, if anything at all it would just be misleading. But that's just my thoughts, and kudos for answering a 2 year wait on a question!TomaHawk61 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, the previous post(s) say that Lockheed Martin acquired Fairchild Systems unit from Loral Corporation in 1996, not Fairchild Aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program

Following the decision in 1992 to keep the A-10 in service, should it be "a" decision instead of "the"? Furthermore, who made the decision? Shouldn't there be a bit more additional background info about the decision???--Now wiki (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it a specific decision (to keep aircraft in use) 'the' seems totally appropriate there, imo. More detail on this does not seem that important. There can't be that important as my books that cover the A-10 don't mention any specifics on that or don't mention it at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOS says to use direct language, not euphemisms

The lead states that the A-10 engages armored vehicles and tanks. That sounds like a euphemism. WP:MOS, in "Words to watch", at WP:EUPHEMISM says the "...word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away...civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage." Based on my reading of the article, it seems the A-10 fires the autocannon or missiles or uses bombs against armored vehicles and tanks.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "engage" a euphemism. Military jargon? Perhaps. At any rate, it seems "engaged" has been replaced by "attacked" - which is a more direct word. Seems like a good compromise to me. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:JARGON would be more appropriate, as it's technical language, but that would be nitpicking a nitpicker. :) I'm also not certain "engaing" always means to fire weapons, as it can involve trying to maneuver into a firing position, but not achieving it. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nitpicking, part II...: ) ....The lede currently says, to paraphrase, that the A-10 provides support against enemy forces. Describing what a titanium-armoured combat jet with a 30mm autocannon/missiles does as providing support seems to like a potential euphemism. I acknowledge that the expression providing support may be a correct military expression/term. But WP isn't a military encyclopedia.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point re: engaging...it does probably mean more than just attacking targets. The A-10 has a range of other roles while airborne---besides attacking.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting sources regarding MTOW

The current version of the article cites a maximum takeoff weight of 51,000 pounds, which is supported by the af.mil Fact sheet. However, USAF TO 1A-10C-1 (2 April 2012, Change 10) (The A-10C flight manual) states on page 5-12 (Section V, Operating Limitations, Weight Limitations):

"The maximum gross weight for towing, taxiing, takeoff, and landing is 46,000 pounds."

AND:

"The maximum in-flight gross weight is 51,000 pounds."

Which should be reflected in the article? M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The first weight above is the max takeoff weight while the second (operating) weight is mainly limited by the max landing weight. These are different quantities. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Short description

Another editor (Fnlayson) reverted an edit (diff) I made to the article's short description, explaining that "text [was] removed without clear reason." Fnlayson is correct. I apologize for not providing an explanation. I created this section to (belatedly) explain my reasoning.

I edited the short description to (a) shorten the description from 72 characters to 49; and (b) remove duplicative information, viz., "Fairchild Republic". My reasoning is based on the guidance contained in Wikipedia:Short description#Content. Short descriptions are in some ways counterintuitive. I have found myself reviewing that Content section several times to make sure I'm writing a decent short description. Here are a few of the points from the Content section that are relevant to the present discussion:

• The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary.
• The short description should focus on distinguishing the subject from similar ones rather than precisely defining it.
• The short description is intended to be used in conjunction with the article title, and should be written as though it follows the title. Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided.

I defer to other editors re: whether or not the current short description should be changed. // Btw, I think the gist of the current short description is one of the best I've seen: "single-seat, twin turbofan engine attack aircraft".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Seems like that length guideline should be repeated at Template:Short description if it has been stable for a while. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. I suggested a copy edit to the Template page, including adding the length guideline: Short description talk page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Query re sources

The article states: "The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.[60][64]". Source 60 is "Donald and March 2004, p. 18" and source 64 is "Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49". Why aren't the titles of the books given? Does anyone know the titles of the books in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.172 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Both books are listed under "Bibliography" by author. BilCat (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A-10 background and the Cessna A-37

Howdy, casual observer here, wondering if any of the cited sources on the A-10 discuss the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly. My understanding—from personal connections and casual reading, definitely not WP:RS—is that the USAF pursued the A-37 largely as an interim stopgap measure to staunch A-1 attrition and address shortcomings in the A-1's capabilities until a better aircraft (the A-10) could be developed, and in this respect, the A-10 also replaced the A-37 in addition to the A-1. I realize that the A-10 is a much more capable aircraft designed with a far greater emphasis on survivability than the A-37, but as I understand it, the Super Tweet was never the aircraft the USAF really wanted—it was the aircraft they could get cheap and in large numbers, right away, and there was a war on. Seems to me that this topic would be a worthy addition to the article and I'm surprised it's not addressed already. Pardon my ramblings. Carguychris (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a big stretch to connect the A-37 to the A-10. I looked at three of my books on the A-10 and they mainly mention the A-1 Skyraider and other attack aircraft like F-105 and A-7. I have not found a mention of the A-37 in these books. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the claimed involvement of Sprey and Burton

I suppose I should have explained my reasons for editing the previously added information first. My reasons for the edit was because the part about Pierre Sprey's involvement in the A-10's development was outdated since it was added in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey) and more information has since come out that made Sprey's claims questionable and contradictory. I apologize for not notifying anyone that I was editing the article and I should have discussed it first. AardvarkSleuth (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible for several things to be true eg 1) that Sprey (and others) had opinions on attack aircraft that were provided to the military 2) that other engineers have significant contribution to design 3) to the extent that Sprey's contribution is overstated and 4) other designers contribution is understated.

But what we really need is some solid referencing on the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disputation of section "A-X program" Pierre Sprey's involvement

I've noticed several others have already attempted to make this change but it was been revoked on the grounds that the admins are under the impression the Wiki page is being troll bombed, or words to that effect.

I wish to dispute the mentions of Pierre Sprey used in the section "A-X Program". Pierre Sprey is one of the more infamous members of the "Fighter Plane Mafia" a group with a reputation for inserting themselves into various historical events regarding the development of United States Military Aviation projects between the 19050's and 1980's for media attention. There is no historical evidence that Pierre Sprey was ever involved in the A-X program, he was not a member of Fairchild's branch of Republic Aviation at Long Island who designed the A-10, and at the time the A-10 was being conceived Sprey had already left the Pentagon in order to pursue a career as a record producer. The A-10's lead designer was Alexander Kartveli.

The sources currently cited in the article's current form that make the claim of Sprey's involvement are the Biography of John Boyd, one of Sprey's best friends and fellow member of the Fighter Plane Mafia, and the book by James Burton "Pentagon Wars" a book who's factual accuracy was debunked over 20 years ago, and is now largely considered a work of fiction. These sources have no historical value and would not be accepted in any other serious publication.

I request that these citations be noted, that the article either remove references to Sprey's involvement and the sources which claim so, or that the dispute be acknowledged in a separate section of the article.

Malcious (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I second this, as there is no proper citation, rather a simple "Coram 2004", with no link. 100.36.155.231 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've flagged instances of "Coram, 2004" for needing page numbers. I found a preview version of the book online and it's hard to tell if the things claimed are not found in the book because 1. it's not shown/searchable in the preview, or 2. phrased such that simple searches can't find them (or I guess 3. not in that book) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested theres about four copies of Boyd on archive.org. It reads more like a hagiography in parts (the author says in the introduction that he spoke to Boyd's "Acolytes" including Sprey) but no indication its reliability is dubious. A-X project discussion is across pages 235-237 (and there's not a lot of text on those pages) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is troll bombed, but this does seem to be getting a lot of attention in the last few days for some reason. We need sources. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NoReformers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), SneakyStephano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 50.90.211.22, and perhaps Malcious (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) all appear to be the same person, so I don't know that it qualfies as "a lot of attention". The article history and this section bears the link, which is just too coincidental. As to the merits, I don't know, I'm a bit more concerned with the monkey business. {{checkuser needed}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I might have found the source of the attention, 7 months ago a YouTuber did 2 videos on the A-10 and why he didn't think it was a good plane, but the first of the 2 videos just turned into a video on how Pierre Sprey wasn't involved and is actually a lier. One of the things mentioned was the artical and so it likely brought attention. This is just a theory though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.220.2 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be concurrent with the effort to prove that Alexander Kartveli designed the A-10. TMK, he was retired by that time, as I recall no mention of his name in the reliable sources I have on the A-10, or on any reliable aviation sites. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't confirm that Kartveli was the main designer of the A-10, but he was definitely not retired at the time it was designed, whereas Sprey was not even working for Fairchild Republic. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Kartveli's wikipedia article and referred sources, it appears he was still an active consultant with Republic at the time of his death in 1974 and at least would have been involved in and aware of the A-10 from that capacity. He was formerly Chief engineer at Republic (and subsequently Fairchild Republic), but I'm not seeing an exact date on when he stepped down from that position. He may have still been Chief Engineer during the formative years of what became the A-10 (either following the initiation of the A-X program in 1966/1967 or potentially even before that with paper design concepts that influenced the A-10 design or even influenced interest in the A-X program itself).

Still, even had he been Chief Engineer through part (or even most) of the A-10 prototype design phases, we'd need more information on the engineering team specific to the project and how the workload was divided. Among other possibilities, Kartveli could have had a largely supervisory role in its design or he could've been quite intimately involved, but more information is needed to point to him being the actual lead designer. I don't think being Chief Engineer of the company would automatically make him lead designer of the project.

Additionally, on the broader issue of the A-10's development, A-X program, and related politics (which don't currently seem to have a dedicated wikipedia article), it may also be useful to look more towards the competing Northrop YA-9 project and compare/contract information on people involved and dates of design requests, proposals, etc, as well as comparing reliability of sources. (the fact the YA-9 has had much less publicity and hasn't been sensationalized might help in filtering out some claims made in interviews or otherwise by word of mouth alone by individuals who might not be real authorities of any kind in the matter) 99.162.146.140 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I'm going to go with  Inconclusive (no comments on IP, etc.) If you want to know more as to what that means, NoReformers is on a static IP that I trust on geolocation. SneakyStephano is on a different continent and on the same extremely common device, and no proxy checks indicate a VPN, etc., but it is in a region I tell new CUs not to trust without behavioural evidence confirming geolocation because of the advent of peer-to-peer proxies and historical lack of reliability of CU data from that area. So in short, NoReformers has a known location. SneakyStephano has no technical indications of using a proxy, but based on experience with ISPs on Wikipedia, I cannot confidently say I trust the CU data on this ISP. Use your judgement and feel free to issue blocks regardless of socking if there's disruption that warrants it (I know you're an old-hand, but that is my standard line in cases like this, without making judgement on the merits of said blocks.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Likely, we are looking at meatpuppetry or a combination then. The coordination is too exact to be coincidence. I'm not going to break out the ban hammer just yet, but if the tag teaming keeps up, then I'm likely. But again, it isn't a lot of attention like it seems. The best thing, as 331dot points out, is to get sources. We just don't need the monkey business to get sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant "a lot of attention" relative to the topic- in my opinion at least(I was passing by) but I agree with everything said here. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As one of the people who did that, I can say I did a foolhardy action, partly because I didn't know about talk pages. I have no intention of repeating it as that will go nowhere. I can say that I have no idea who the other users are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.211.22 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with Pierre Sprey regardless of the attention this page is receiving is that the only mention of him in the sources given are two books written about Boyd. The paragraph that says "according to former pilot John Boyd" should be edited because this gives the impression that Boyd was a pilot of the A-10. In reality, Boyd was done flying for the USAF at this point and his role was relegated to lobbying. He was a member of the same lobby group as Sprey. We have no other sources to verify what Boyd says about his close colleague, and Boyd himself was never part of the A-10 project. Furthermore, the book by Coram says it uses information from Boyd's "acolytes" and not Boyd himself. Thus, the phrasing "according to John Boyd" should be changed to also reflect that we don't have a direct quote from him. Lastly, there's also this doctoral thesis (https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) which points out Sprey and his colleagues history of being misleading with their credentials and experience, one of which being Sprey's participation on the A-10. The other citation used was Ford's book which makes even more outlandish claims by saying they brought in German nationals who had to be housed in a CIA safehouse. There is no other source that says the CIA was even involved in any way on the project, and if it's classified, this information wouldn't be openly disclosed. I think at the very least a note needs to be made about that paragraph. --Zhanjack822 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay so I would like to offer a suggestion however I'm not sure if I have this whole story correct so here's my best summary and someone can let me know if I got it right.

So about 7 months ago the YouTuber lazerpig known for his other critiques of the fighter Mafia members published two videos about the a-10 disputing the claims that spray was ever involved in the a-10 program. Currently the only proof that he ever was is from books about another member of the group who claimed spray was involved in the basic requirements set out for the a-10 not designing the aircraft as a whole.

If this is all correct the answer is quite simple. Spray didn't design the a-10 the aircraft development team and Fairchild did, then built there design and submitted it to the air force for testing, that's how aircraft procurement works. Now if spray wrote the requirements set out for the program his name should be referenced on the proposals submitted to every company that decided to enter the program. If there is no proof he ever set the specifications for the aircraft then there should be no argument. The proper documentation should be able to be requested from whichever aircraft manufacturer took over the design team when Fairchild was bought out. Or a freedom of information request could be made looking for the original Fairchild design proposal and the documents that layed out the requirements for competitors in the program Tankophiliac (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything it's more likely if Sprey influenced the specification that his involvement would be recorded in internal memos and minutes that were used to generate the final specification rather than being on the specification document itself as issued to aircraft manufacturers. I don't think FOI will get you anywhere (Someone somewhere is probably writing the definitive history of the A-10 with benefit of internal documents). At the moment all the source does seem to say is that Sprey had a hand in the specification, the article text can reflect that without getting bogged down into the exact amount of influence he had over the specification. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Does it even matter? Writing requirements is not designing the aircraft. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Technically, writing specifications IS part of designing, although not nearly as sexy as breaking out the graph paper. You can say he "played a small role by assisting with the original specifications" or similar and get that done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sprey (more)

As of now, part of the development section of this article has been made a hidden comment on the basis that claims made by the late Pierre Sprey are under greater scrutiny following public discussion of his falsification of involvement in previous projects. Unless a source independent from Boyd can substantiate the claims, the reference is based on hearsay statements from an individual known for exaggeration and falsification and will be removed soon. To break seriousness for a moment, the bit about "German WWII veterans" really is the icing on the embellishment cake. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: you removed the portion played in the comment on the basis that it is "cited content." Ignoring for a moment that the content is at the minimum improperly cited, it is also worth noting that not all sources are to be treated equally. As such, the inclusion of such major claims as made in the Boyd book require greater substantiation than that available in this text, which is based almost exclusively on a single source compiled by an individual with no official qualifications as a historian. There aren't even citations for most of the statements given. Such sources are more than questionable enough to be hidden until further substantiation is made available. Simple prior presence in an article is not enough to qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be formed to remove cited content (see WP:CONACHIEVE). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: it would seem we have a stance towards exclusion of this material already. Additionally, to temporarily hide material that is under consideration for not being a WP:RS is good practice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I count five editors for the removal of the material and only one for the appellation of a disclaimer. The other editors in the conversation were only concerned regarding the potential of trolling stemming from a video that mentioned Sprey. This seems like consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Consensus should be based on weight of arguments not just vote count. Also, several of the posters in previous sections apparently came from YouTube and are single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA), not Wikipedians. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson:Still, other non-SPA editors–including myself–have offered legitimate criticisms of the source and have suggested deletion or significant relegation. Are you providing an argument for retention? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the German pilots for the moment, the business about asking Skyraider pilots about their experiences and then using that to derive specifications does not seem untoward. It does not meet the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence level. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sprey text should be removed or heavily re-written based on other sources, imo. The Campbell Warthog book (see article Biblio) says he became one of the Whiz Kids and helped write/revise the requirements spec for A-X program. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett and Fnlayson, so that we can move towards consensus sometime in the soonish future, I propose retention of certain aspects of the Boyd sourcing, specifically the portion on the Skyraider pilots. Outside of that, I would be hesitant to include much more. As Fnlayson noted in his edit, some portion of Sprey's involvement in particular is at least alluded to in the mention of the cannon's introduction and I'm am good with that. While I would like a consensus in the next couple of days (so that if more SPAs show up we have a definitive answer), if there is future serious comment I do think this ought continue discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sprey's role in the committee which put fort the requirements for the program is referenced elsewhere and seems undisputed, except by those invested enough to dispute Sprey's involvement wholesale. Whatever occurs with references to Sprey's purportedly more material role, references to his role in the aforementioned committee shouldn't be expunged, although perhaps more citations should be added for this apart from Boyd. Zusty001 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: Do you have some of these additional references? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: "The Revolt of the Majors: How the Air Force Changed After Vietnam" cites an interview with Lt. Gen. Arthur C. Agan in which he heavily lambasts Sprey, but tacitly acknowledges both Boyd and Sprey's involvement with the A-X project.

"While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of."

This is just a citation I could locate easily. Sprey's involvement in the project itself seems to be more or less universally known, excluding ideas such as his being the main designer (Personally, I don't think he was intentionally lying when he said things such as that, but that's not relevant). I've not read Robert Coram's book on John Boyd, and it does seem to be a sort of panegyric, but I would like to hear more about if it should be expunged as a citation or just clarified. Zusty001 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that citation, Zusty001! I'll try to plug the relevant information in (though it seems to deal far more heavily with F-15 development, there are potentially useful pieces here). The reason the Boyd book's information is not presently visible (though still available for reinsertion pending additional verification) is that the claims made within the text are not independently verifiable, come nearly exclusively from Sprey's interviews, and are fairly fantastical in their content. The same trouble partially arises with the work you've cited here: Sprey's interviews form a significant basis for what his involvement was (though here are bolstered in part by additional sourcing). Much of what is known about Sprey comes almost exclusively from his own words rather than independent reporting. Heck, even the Washington Post couldn't be bothered to provide us with some additional sourcing and borrows heavily from the interviews cited in the Boyd text for Sprey's recent obituary here. Indeed, most of what we know about Sprey falls into this trap of poor verifiability, frustrating as it may be. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: The book, and citation, I'm reffering to is Robert Coram's "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War". As just mentioned, the author was not Boyd himself, but one Robert Coram. Again, I haven't read the book, and I don't know how heavily it relies on personal statements of Boyd, Sprey, etc., but I'd like to see more actual discussion of that.

As for the work I've mentioned, "The Revolt of the Majors", the interview contained within and which I've quoted above was not an interview of Sprey (As noted), nor was it conducted by him (As should be explicit given the language); The interviewer was Jacob Neufeld, of the Air Force Historical Studies Office, and, previously, Director of the Center for Air Force History.

His involvement in the more material aspects of the A-X program is one thing. But the suggestion that he and his cohorts somehow managed to fabricate his involvement with such a government-involved project entirely, fooling even the entire government itself, is, I think, unjustifiably conspiratorial in its precepts. Zusty001 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I recognize what text you're referring to as I was the one who combed it and realized there were no citations for many of the claims made within it except to supposed interviews with the late Sprey. Indeed, the quotation you included does in fact cite a Sprey interview, though this text cites additional material that undermines the credibility of Sprey's claims within the book on Boyd. The issue at hand is the suggestion of some aspects of his story–notably the involvement of WWII German pilots in the development process–that fly in the face of properly-sourced testimonies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: "Indeed, the quotation you included does in fact cite a Sprey interview..." May I ask what you mean here? As I've stated, the interview is of Lt. Gen. Arthur C. Agan of the Air Force, who is giving a very explicitly negative overview of Sprey in the quotation (While affirming his and Boyd's involvement in the A-X program). If you don't mean to say that this is an interview of or by Sprey, I apologise, but still ask for clarification.

"...this text cites additional material that undermines the credibility of Sprey's claims within the book on Boyd." By this text, do you mean the work "The Revolt of the Majors", or something else? Zusty001 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The quotation of the article you cited above, found on page 80 of the text, is referenced as citation 45 of that section, attributed to an interview of Sprey with a citation found on page 92. The material within "Revolt" actively undermines the credibility of Sprey and his claims, which form the near exclusive basis of material regarding his involvement in A-10 development as described in the book on Boyd. "Revolt" essentially demonstrates through further sourcing that Sprey overestimated his involvement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I should apologise; Lt. Gen. Agan's interview with Neufeld does not mention Sprey by name. Agan was a figure in the F-X program, and a proponent of single-role fighters. What I quoted above was "The Revolt of the Majors"'s own words, derived from an interview with Sprey. I'm not sure if I heard the quote improperly attributed somewhere else or if was purely my own mistake. I retract a large portion of what I said. The exception to this retraction is that Sprey's involvement, even if exaggerated in media, in other sources, and even by himself, isn't really deniable, and shouldn't be eliminated wholly from the article. (Somewhat related to what I said about contrary claims being 'unjustifiably conspiratorial' is that the Sprey and Agan interviews by Neufeld were conducted within two years of each other, with the other two Neufeld interviews cited in "Revolt" being with Calvin Hargis of the Department for Development, and Gen. Roger Rhodarmer, the head of the F-X program, presumably as a series of USAF interviews on that aforementioned program); "The Revolt of the Majors" may still be relevant for citation, as well. Zusty001 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: You’re fine! I will repeat though: we have had no independent verification of Sprey's claim on this matter appear in the article or on the talk page, and your suggesting regarding the interviews, while a reasonable extrapolation, excludes it from inclusion due to WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, it is not conspiracy to suggest Sprey's claims are false because nearly every independently verifiable source dismisses them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Checking to see if I am shadowbanned. Zusty001 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no "shadowbanning" on Wikipedia. If you were under a topic ban or similar you would know it. - Ahunt (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: It appears I am not. I was unable to reply to you yesterday. "...nearly every independently verifiable source dismisses them." Putting aside what may be called an 'independently verifiable source' for these purposes, I disagree. The problem, given that there is one, is the simple lack of sources that give anything resembling a list of persons involved in the A-X and F-X programs. Numerous sources involving known U.S. Air Force and general U.S. military affiliated persons tell of Sprey's *involvement* in the program, if only to discredit what they purport to be his exaggerations of his own importance. I don't see an attempt to discredit this entirely as good grounds to expunge his name. If I were to make a suggestion, and hopefully a moderate one, it would be that the currently hidden portion should be revised, adding clarification and perhaps more information on these complications, as well as additional information on the development in general; Or, if needed, it should be deleted and rewritten, without expunging all mention of Sprey. Zusty001 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue that I see with re-adding mentions of Sprey into this article without the fantastical and unverified claims given by hearsay from his peers is that we aren't really left with anything of relevance. If he was on some committee advising and reviewing the stated goals of the program or something similar, then he'd just be one of who knows how many on such a committee and we don't have verified sources (unless you have some) that provide a specific contribution by Sprey that is important enough for it to be worth mentioning. I.e. with what we can tell of his involvement, if he wasn't such an infamous braggart and crank, would he just be another no-name employee? Zhanjack822 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Was unable to edit on this talk page, as well as other pages, yesterday. Edit would publish and then simply not show up anywhere. I'm unsure why. Zusty001 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Zusty001 I was having similar problems earlier today. It's most likely a technical issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: As a fairly new account on here and as previously mentioned in this conversation above, credence is given those editors who demonstrate both initiative and involvement. Since the vast majority of your accounts edits have been talk page discussions, I would encourage you to take this opportunity to improve the article using what resources you find. If you are unable to, whether due to technical limitations that appear to have frustrated your efforts yesterday or time restrictions that plague all our lives, I can do it. Additionally, if you need any technical help or have any additional questions, reach me on my talk page or here. I would appreciate seeing what edits you want to see as that would very much help closing this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GAU-8 Anti-tank Effectiveness

I propose the section on GAU-8 describing it being built specifically for “anti-tank” operation contain a disclaimer that the weapon was only effective at penetrating side and rear armor of post-war tanks (such as T-55) when it came out.

The weapon was essentially obsolete at the anti-tank role for any contemporary armor. The Maverick missile was always intended to be its primary anti-tank weapon and this has been borne out in practice. DietDrPhil (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have to support that information? 331dot (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the claim of it being ineffective against more modern tanks, please see this report. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf Gavin12312 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, this article is about the aircraft. The GAU-8 Avenger has a separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree there should be saction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.113.195 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Bean vandalism

There have been a couple edits to insert the word "bean" somewhere into this page. While I don't know the origin of it, my best guess is that there's some sort of inside joke going on. If it increases, I might ask for a week of increased protection. Unrelated, but if anyone knows the context for the joke, please share it with me on my talk page (I could use a laugh). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Concerning vandalism, it is usually best to revert/remove and Deny recognition. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BEANS. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Y -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BilCat An eerily aptly named essay. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How long do we wait for citations to be added where it says citation needed before it should just be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you all are so invested in preserving this page for some strange reason then why not use all the time to make it more readable and informative. Let alone the seriously lack of correct citations or flat out missing sources. I was hoping to be able to confirm whether or not this really was the only plane ever designed for CAS, Searching the internet always leads back here and I can't find a source in any of the links on this page. If it exists please send it to me I need to know this for my homework. If this cannot be provided then why is this still in the article. This is supposed to be a encyclopedic reference source and I suspect there is something else going on here. I don't understand Wikipedia politics or politics in general. Just give me a source or page number or video link or interview or ISBN number or a isle number in the library of congress. I have no interest in Wikipedia editing, I only came here to learn about the A-10. When I was disappointed by the underwhelming state of this article I figured I could help make it easier for the next guy. Had I know this was some sort of popular relevant or even recent page I would not have gotten involved. Maybe I just underestimate the number of people just watching for wiki edits or whatevere but I can't help but suggest that some of you spend that time improving this page for actually users to come and find information on. Thank You for you time and effort on wikipedia in general. Just remember what it is all about. Please on write things that are true. This isn't reddit. -- Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.103.4 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH! -- Ross 71.58.103.4 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GAU-8 Ammunition discrepancy

There seems to be a discrepancy between this article and the article for it's armament.

From this article: "The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition, but generally holds 1,174 rounds."

From GAU-8 Avenger: "The magazine can hold 1,174 rounds, although 1,150 is the typical load-out."

Not sure how to address this discrepancy. Thoughts? Gnomatique (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

From the A-10A flight manual:

The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with capacity up to 1,350 rounds of percussion primed ammunition. Most aircraft have a helix installed in the drum assembly which limits the system capacity to 1,174 rounds of percussion primed ammunition.

From the A-10C flight manual:

The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with a capacity up to 1,174 rounds of percussion primed ammunition.

My understanding however is that 1,150 is indeed the "typical" load, as pointed out for example by retired A-10 pilot Luke Fricke on a podcast: Fighter Pilot Podcast, episode 044 (relevant part starting approx. 22:15) quote: "typical load is 1150 rounds"

Also from a photo caption:

Airmen from the 51st Munitions Squadron preload shop ensure the proper load-out of 1,150 rounds in each magazine.

Also this:

A fully loaded A-10 can carry 2,000-pound and 500-pound joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMs, bombs; laser-guided JDAMs; the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missile; and, McCarthy said, "don't ever forget the [30-millimeter GAU-8/A Avenger] gun with 1,150 rounds -- what that aircraft was built around."

So to sum up what is going on to my understanding, the A-10A started out with a max capacity of 1,350, which was reduced to 1,174 already on some aircraft. On A-10Cs (so all remaining A-10s), it appears to always be 1,174 max capacity, with 1,150 being the typical load. – Recoil (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Fairchild Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II_-_32156159151.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 24, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-02-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat twin-turbofan attack aircraft developed by Fairchild Republic for the United States Air Force. Nicknamed the Warthog, it has been in service since 1976, and is named for the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II–era fighter-bomber. The A-10 was designed to provide close air support to ground troops by attacking armored vehicles, tanks, and other enemy ground forces, with a secondary mission of forward air control, which involves directing other aircraft in attacks on ground targets. This A-10, assigned to 74th Fighter Squadron, was photographed in 2011 flying over Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Photograph credit: William Greer

Recently featured:

• Physalis peruviana
• Hair Like Mine
• Robert le diable

"Poor firepower"?

The article says "The A-1 Skyraider also had poor firepower." An attack plane with poor firepower? What did it use to attack? This calls out for more explanation.

Also, while I'm typing, where did the nickname "Warthog" come from? I had long understood it to be a reference to the A-10's ungainly appearance, but haven't seen a reliable source for any explanation. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The A- attack designation only specifies an aircraft's role, not necessarily how effective it is at that role. Times change. The A-1 was from a previous era. Do some reading/research. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that it could use some clarification. Is this "poor firepower" referring to internal armament, like cannon? Is it referring to the amount of ordinance it could carry being to low? Is it referring to an inability to mount more modern, harder hitting or more accurate (or both) ordinance? "Poor firepower" is a bit too broad a term. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying the Skyraider had inadequate or poor firepower is simply incorrect, and the starement either needs an explanation or removal. The A-1 had adequate firepower for the time and place, and it was superior to the available alternatives. One hopes that a replacement aircraft would be improved, but that is not the same as saying the A-1's firepower was "poor." What is correct to say is the A-10 has much improved firepower, and a broader mission - the Skyraider was never intended for the same anti-armor role as the A-10, for instance, though it could destroy armor with bombs if need be, and the A-10 obviously carries a wider array of improved ordinance, most or all of unavailable during the Vietnam and Korean Wars. Simply put, as a close air support aircraft and as a bomber for certain types of missions, the A-1 was superior to other aircraft in the USAF inventory at the time. Sciacchitano (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sciacchitano The sourced statement that the A-1 had poor firepower is referring to the time of the Vietnam War. While the A-1 (or rather, AD at the time) may have been an exceptional attack aircraft in terms of firepower when it first saw combat in Korea, it was a different story over a decade later in Vietnam. Unless you have a source contradicting the one in the article, or you have evidence that the source is unreliable, the statement should remain. We can't remove sourced content based on WP:OR alone. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"Warthog" & "Hog"

Usually in Wikipedia articles about thing known by multiple names, all the names are near the top and in bold. Should the same thing be done for "Warthog" and "Hog" here? CommandProMC (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that the page already says the names "Warthog" and "Hog", but they are shown more down and not bold. CommandProMC (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See the manual of style guidelines for when bold should be used. I don't think Warthog counts in this instance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct Flight manual

Is the publication TO 1A-10C-1 the correct and reasonable current flight manual for the A-10C? As found here https://kupdf.net/download/t-o-1a-10c-1-flight-manual-usaf-series-a-10c-2012_58f4d870dc0d60a105da981b_pdf Or is this source not authoritative? Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:C100:2D56:65E4:1309:43E5:AB92 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the same document has been issued several times with several revisions under the same name. Not looking at yours (sorry, don't trust PDF hosting sites) but chances are probably not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not looking at the document either, but glancing at the link and seeing "2012", I'm assuming it's the same 2012 manual that keeps popping up in various places. It is "reasonable" in that it is A-10C (not A-10A), but since 2012 numerous developments have been made in terms of systems for the A-10, so it's not "current". – Recoil (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Collateral damage problem

I think there's a problem with this text "The A-10 has been involved in killing ten U.S. troops in friendly-fire over four incidents between 2001 and 2015 and 35 Afghan civilians from 2010 to 2015, more than any other U.S. military aircraft; these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.[125]" in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments section. For one, it's vague. What does "more than any other US military aircraft" refer to? To the killing of Afghan civilians? Specifically Afghan ones? But, then, the timeframe, why that timeframe? Why is that inserted into this article? For instance just one year earlier, in '09, a B-1 killed 97 civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For instance, in '03 a F-14 killed 22 allied troops. Why is this information presented in such a narrow way completely stripped of it's context? Presumably this is information that was released by the AF at a time when, I'm sure, coincidentally, the AF was campaigning for the A-10 to be withdrawn from service? And at that time, the AF just happened to release information specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light? So why is it being presented in this article with no context, no analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Was there something unique about the A-10 in these instances? Was there some kind of flaw? Was there something special or interesting about the four friendly fire incidents or the incidents where A-10s killed Afghan civilians? Was there something unique about how the A-10 was employed in Afghanistan? Perhaps relating to the altitude, or the terrain of the country, maybe a language issue, something relating specifically to that mission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, what the heck does the following sentence, "These incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability." mean? Collateral damage issues "assessed" as being "inconclusive and insignificant" "in terms of the planes capability"... What does that mean? What is meant by "in terms of the planes capability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor - but my thoughts are that if this was widely reported, then it's worth inclusion.

You're better off making concrete suggestions for what should be changed rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions and making accusations. (Hohum ^@) 22:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hohum is right. The incidents are included because they were widely reported by reliable sources. Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

While they are rhetorical questions, I also want to know the answer to those questions. I don't have any problem including information about collateral damage caused by the A-10, but it should be done in context, and not in a misleading way.

It's not about how it was reported. It was actually reported skeptically, noting, for instance, that the Project on Government Oversight requested the government furnish information on collateral damage from outside. wrt: "Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory." again, yes, it was reported skeptically, that article points out, referencing a response by the Project on Government Oversight https://web.archive.org/web/20150210231032/https://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/af-hq-declassified-and-released-incomplete-data.html but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the article should generally make sense. Which, I believe, at present, it doesn't for reasons I've already stated. I don't think it should muddy the issue, making vague statements. And I don't think the article should present misinformation.

To quote wikipedia, the definition of misinformation is "Misinformation refers to false or misleading information.".

You can do this comically. For instance an example of popular comic misinformation is warning people about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide. It kills people, causes untold billions of dollars in damage every year, so on and so on. This creates the false impression that di-hydrogen monoxide is unusually damaging and dangerous when, of course, in fact, dhm is water.

In this case, though, I thought it was quite painfully obvious, the Air Force presents a set of facts. During a certain time period the A-10 killed more Afghan civilians than any other US military aircraft. Taking this information out of context, as this article does, this creates the false impression that the A-10 is unique in the danger of it causing civilian collateral damage.

In fact, in the time period in question from 2010 to 2014, the A-10 caused the second fewest civilian casualties per sortie compared to six other aircraft, only the AC-130, which created .7 civilian casualties per sortie caused fewer casualties per sortie than the A-10. And, again, you can only say the A-10 killed the most Afghan civilians by excluding the '09 incident, and all other pre '10 incidents. So why is this article presenting this misleading information creating the misleading impression that, because of vague wording, the A-10 could kill more allied soldiers in friendly fire incidents than any other airplane, which is false. Why is this article creating the misleading impression that the 35 Afghan civilians killed by the A-10 between 2010 and 2015 is significant, creating the misleading impression that the A-10 causes more civilian casualties than any other US aircraft. This is a false impression created by this paragraph. Sadly, I'm sure it's true that the A-10 caused 35 Afghan civilian casualties over that period of time, but, in context, while sad, looking at the broader picture, you see the truth that the A-10, in fact, is not the US aircraft that is most dangerous to civilians. Withholding that context from the reader only serves to create a false impression in the mind of the reader. A false impression that benefited the stated goal of the US Air Force, to retire the A-10.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think that the paraphrasing, "these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.", which, at first I objected to because on the face of it it seemed to be nonsensical, looking at the source, I don't think accurately reflects the text of the source. If I'm right it's referencing: "The data do not prove the A-10 is poorly suited to its mission, according to Dustin Walker, a spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee. "While any loss of life is a great tragedy, in the context of tens of thousands of Air Force combat missions, this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective in its primary mission, or at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents," Walker said."

I'd simply quote the source as saying "this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective... at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents" Fanccr (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fanccr: Please see WP:TEXTWALL. I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make that much sense and you go off on a few tangents. Please list the sources you want to use (mentioning page numbers where relevant), preferably with quotes from them, and give a specific "change X to Y"-formatted statement. In the meantime until consensus is achieved, don't make changes to the article that now multiple editors have reverted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I cannot read peoples minds, at least not over the internet. I don't know why you rolled back my edits. I don't know what you think was original research. I don't know what Hohums or ZLEAs issues were either as they chose not to divulge them. For the third time, or fifth depending if you include the edits, first, I'd like to make the section more clear. When the section says most whatever since whenever is it referring to friendly fire fatalities or is it referring to Afghan Civilian fatalities, or both. iirc the sourced article seems to indicate that it's the ACF, and so I tried to correct the section but someone chose to roll back those edits, for whatever reason. Instead of someone going so far as to say this violated this policy in this way, explaining their actions, instead someone vaguely pointed at some policy and basically said figure it out with explaining anything. Do they think the widely reported 2009 Granai Massacre is somehow original research or something? I don't know and they seem to have no interest in explaining it. I think the information should be presented without bias and in context, rather than parroting misleading statistics taken out of context that was used during a campaign to retire the A-10 during sequestration. And what I feel are misleading paraphrased quotes should be corrected. This really isn't enormously complicated. I've tried to make a small number of modest changes, in such a way that if someone has an issue with one edit, and not with a second less controversial edit that simply reorders a sentence to eliminate something that's at best vague and at worst misleading, yet people choose to roll back any changes with only vague references to some seemingly irrelevant policy with no explanation. Fanccr (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fanccr: I rolled back your edits because you didn't provide sources in the article for your claims. You have been reverted once; further efforts to restore your edits without acquiring consensus is edit warring. I provided you a clear path to convincing us that your edits are worthwhile; you did none of those things and did the one thing I encouraged you not to do. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is the same as the original source for the information. As an example, in the last case, I simply reordered the sentence to remove the ambiguity. For the sixth time, the AF claimed that in the time period of '10 to '15 the A-10 caused the most civilian casualties, to eliminate the ambiguity I reordered the sentence to make it clear that the issue of the 10 fratricides was a different, unrelated issues, over a different timespan ('01-'15). This is very very simple, but this seems to have become intractable, so I have raised the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Fanccr (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build an article that is informative regarding the subject. I don't see where out of context numbers regarding civilian and friendly deaths is informative about the subject. IMO it's the opposite. Such numbers would be heavily or primarily determined by the amount of missions performed and the nature of them (importantly close air support) ...that would be a good place to start as context info to avoid being misleading from being taken out of context. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Missions/Roles also OA/10

I may have missed it but this article doesn't seem to cover what missions/roles the A-10 fills, e.g. combat search and rescue, forward air controller (airborne), strike control and reconnaissance, counter air and counter sea, close air support, special operations support (which are primary missions, which secondary?). Also the article doesn't seem to have good coverage of the OA/10, though I don't know the exact details about the OA/10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources covering the OA-10 (not OA/10, US Tri-Service designations are hyphenated), or any of the other missions, feel free to expand the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Contentiousness of the F-35 Replacement

In the article it is said that F-35 replacement of A-10s is contentious "both within the USAF and political circles," yet there seems to be no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog. 75.132.237.67 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There are those within the USAF who want to replace the A-10 with the F-35, and there are those who want to keep the A-10 in service for the foreseeable future. The statement, which is expanded upon in this section, accurately describes the state of the A-10's retirement plan. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia goes, if a WP:RS states something, we can publish it to the article (Example if a reliable source states that there is no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog). If there are contrasting viewpoints in other media you can add it in. Deciding to publish our own viewpoints is WP:OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Shoddy citation for the "exclusively designed for close air support" claim

the citation (which contradicts all of the other citations, including the design of the A-10 and its gun to kill tanks, on this page) that the A-10 was "exclusively designed for Close Air Support" comes from a 2016 book that doesn't cite its sources and is written by a guy whose entire other archive is WWII history. Can this be deleted since it's clearly wrong (as contradicted by the other citations on the page) and is just generally a bad citation? 174.67.177.185 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A-1 losses to enemy fire in Vietnam were 256, not 266.

Also it is incorrect that most losses were to small arms fire. It would be nearly impossible to down a Skyraider with small arms fire. It could be correct to say "ground fire," which in Vietnam ranged from twin 14.5mm heavy machineguns, 37mm, and larger gun batteries, and SAMs. Practically speaking, even a 14.5mm would have a tough time with a Skyraider.

256 USAF and Navy A-1s were lost to groundfire, and another 10 to other causes. The Vietnamese Air Force lost a total of 255. This latter number should be noted in the article. Sciacchitano (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)