Talk:Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

LTV A-7 Corsair II

The A7 was ordered by the Air force already in 1965, entering service in 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II#Improved_versions so the section on the aftermath seems incorrect, or not fully correct. 101.119.30.185 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

*Comment - Hmm, interesting point. I take it you're referring to this statement:

"The rescue of Bat 21 was a watershed event for the military and led them to find a new approach to high-threat search and rescue. They recognized that if a SAR mission was predestined to fail, it should not be attempted, and other options such as special operations, diversionary tactics and other creative approaches tailored to the situation had to be considered. Recognizing the need for an aircraft that could deliver better close air support, the Air Force introduced the A-7 Corsair. The military also improved the night capability of helicopters and area denial munitions..."

Not sure what to do here, as I don't have access to the original source used in this article (Busboom, Lt. Col. Stanley (April 2, 1990). Bat 21: A Case Study. Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: U.S. Army War College. Retrieved April 3, 2011.). However, I can understand how one might finished confused if they read this Bat 21 article as perhaps suggesting the Air Force developed (vs. introduced)the A-7 Corsair as a result of the Bat 21 SAR, but then read-on to the Corsair article you referenced, where it's stated:

"The 354th TFW first deployed two squadrons of A-7Ds to Korat Royal Thai AFB, Thailand in September 1972 as part of Operation Cornet Dancer, The A-7Ds were quickly assigned the "Sandy mission" of providing air cover for Combat Search and Rescue missions of downed pilots. Taking over for Douglas A-1 Skyraiders (and adopting their call sign of "Sandy"), the A-7's higher speed was somewhat detrimental for escorting the helicopters but the aircraft's high endurance and durability were an asset and it performed admirably. ..."

*Suggestion - So the Air Force, while happy to take advantage of its capabilities, did not develop the A-7 Corsair as a specific, direct response to the challenges of the 1972 Bat 21 Bravo SAR effort (although that's not claimed in this article anyway), but rather, decided to introduce the aircraft or designate it for that role upon analyzing the performance of aircraft during Bat 21 SAR? Maybe some qualification can be added to the text, clarifying that the aircraft wasn't "developed" in response to Bat 21, but rather (as is stated here already), was simply recognized for its suitability to the task and used-accordingly? Or is this no longer even an issue for you, 101.119.30.185? Cheers. Azx2 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why in the first place?

I would like to know why Lt. Col. Iceal Hambleton of the known rescued pilot of BAT 21 was allowed to fly a mission when it was known that he had knowledge of secret information of SAC operations. He had high security clearance. In my view because of his plane being shot down we had to do what ever to get him out of enemy hands ASAP. Even at the cost of many human lives of great, great rescue men. He should have not gotten any medals for his actions. I do feel that he feels the same way. I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerkos70 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:

• "Hambleton pulled the ejection seat handles and had a moment to make eye contact with the pilot as his seat rocketed out of the dying plane."
• "Hambleton was due for some R&R, and his wife Gwen was planning to meet him in Thailand the next week."
• "The Air Force did not put limits on what it took to rescue a downed airman."
• "Hambleton decided that with only nine months to go until his retirement, he was going to survive and return home."

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as that text is appropriately footnoted I don't see the problem. Yes it is not strictly encyclopedic style but it seems quite readable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Do you mean explained in a footnote or covered by a citaton? I did trim some of the "eye contact" text in the article. (I have not been involved with this article before, just trying to help a little.) -Fnlayson (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the nomination; the tone is generally unencyclopedic. As the article also contains significant uncited material, thus violating GA criterion 2b), I think delist unless improvements are made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delist - also cites unreliable sources such as an angelfire website, imdb, and a self-published AuthorHouse book. I additionally have reliability concerns with some of the other web sources used. Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 3 January 2024 (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.