Talk:492nd Fighter Squadron

Infobox - mass removal of excess

I have trimmed down the overloaded Infobox per MOS:INFOBOX

• The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the key facts that appear in an article. An article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content.

I am aware that some of my editing has removed pertinent information, which pains me, but in all cases that information should not reside solely within the Infobox.

If any editor feels strongly that these elements should be re-instated, please find a way of incorporating the information within the main text. If you catch me on a particularly good day, I might even be able to give you some useful pointers.

For example; under 'Decorations', it was mentioned that two Distinguished unit citations had been awarded to the 492nd, but there is nothing anywhere explaining the background. Was it during the Gulf War, Operation El Dorado Canyon, or what? No, it was during WWII, and what is more I have the dates too. Meanwhile, under 'Engagements', the two months on anti-submarine ops with a haphazard collection of inappropriate aircraft, gets included by way of a pretty streamer awarded to any unit that got out of bed that day, but AFAIK they achieved precious little in that theater of operations. So whilst they were given the award, is it notable, or is it like the Purple Heart awarded to the serviceman who fell off a ladder whilst painting the barracks somewhere in Indiana? Okay, that might be an urban myth.

As for the Douglas A-20 Havoc being 'second-line'; the RAF would have bitten your hand off for an extra squadron of those in early 1942. The Douglas B-18 Bolo was a different story however.

Hopefully someday soon I will get around to putting something useful back into this article, with some long overdue citations to back it up. In the meantime, be my guest.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Initial equipment (1941); A-18 or B-18?

Just to elaborate on my earlier comment regarding the 'obsolete' Douglas B-18 Bolo; this may have puzzled readers as this article on the 492nd identifies their initial aircraft types as "second-line aircraft [sic], such as the Curtiss A-18 Shrike and Douglas A-20 Havoc". It fails to even mention the B-18 Bolo. As I have already alluded, the A-20 Havoc was in no way second-line at that date, but setting that aside, there are other issues here. The Group history for the 48th BG mentions this different aircraft, the Douglas B-18 Bolo, but it is of course chronically short of citations. Meanwhile the histories of the other constituent squadrons vary, with the 493rd and 494th also identifying the Curtiss A-18 Shrike, but the fourth squadron, the 495th, then known as the 9th Reconnaissance Squadron mentioning the B-18 Bolo instead. Once again, sources are 'thin'.

Some 80 years after the event maybe its an easy thing to mistake an A-18 for a B-18. And maybe it is also natural to switch B-18 to A-18, to keep it consistent with the A-20 'attack' type. Either way, the B-18 Bolo is desperately ugly, LOL.

On top of all that the official USAF website for Lakenheath and the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) both identify the A-18 Shrike across these units. Overall, the A-18 Shrike appears to be the primary candidate.

Sorted!

Except... there were only a total of 13 Curtiss A-18 Shrikes ever built, and four of those served in Panama, so that leaves us somewhat 'light' on numbers. Digging deeper, after a brief period with the 8th Attack Squadron, the remaining nine A-18s were distributed amongst nine different Light Bombardment Squadrons during 1940-42, i.e. one aircraft to each unit. That means they were likely being used purely as support aircraft.

That makes these respected sources, and Wikipedia as it currently stands, all wrong. But how much of all that is down to me, aka original research, and how do we put it right without a solid source that confirms what is fact and what is nonsense? (Plus I'm beginning to doubt myself - have I made a mistake somewhere?)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)