Talk:Douglas A-26 Invader/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Douglas A-26 Invader. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Attack bomber

Not familiar with this term: I assume it's yet another synonym for ground attack aircraft (especially given the A- designation). Was it the contemporary description? Alai 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's a means of indicating that the aircraft started out as an attack aircraft (A-26), was redesignated as a bomber (B-26 - yes, the same designation as the earlier B-26 Marauder!) in 1948, and then redesignated back to an attack aircraft (from B-26K to A-26A) in 1962. Aerobird 02:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah... wouldn't have guessed that in a hurry. :) If this can be confirmed, it might be worth saying so more explicitly, then. The current terminology isn't clear, especially when it doesn't resolve to one link, but two separate ones. Alai 05:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We were not allowed to fly bombers out of Thailand. Therefore the A designation replaced the B. My dad was crew chief on one of the first planes that landed at NKP. It also happens to be the plane that is at Wright-Pat.

Number of Machine Guns

>Six 12.7 mm machine guns & Two 12.7 mm machine guns<

What is meant by this? 6 in the nose and 2 in the wings? Was there a dorsal turret? I nthink this could do with clarification, unfortunately I'm not the guy to do it. Epeeist smudge 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rating

This is a patheticlly short and uninformative article for such an important aircraft. No commentary on the change from A-26 to B-26 then back to A-26, just the designations without so much as a peep? This aircraft served in three major wars and deserves far more attention. In fact, I'm going to reccomend it for AID. - Aerobird 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it! Much luck! --Signaleer 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Gallery

Douglas A-26B
Side view
Douglas B-26C (A-26C) "Invader"
Painted nose section of a Douglas B-26C(A-26)
"Invader" (March 2007)

For some reason, the image gallery for this particular aircraft continues to be removed. Anyhow, instead of getting into an edit war, I've placed the gallery into the discussion section.
v/r
Chitrapa 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This reason is explained in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Photo_sections. Piotr Mikołajski 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that:"There is no official policy" as a guideline to inclusion of image galleries. If the images do not overwhelm the article, there can be a case for keeping them in place unless they are already found in the Wikipedia Commons which in itself can act as an image gallery. Bzuk 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Piotr
Honestly, while the page is not "overwhelmed" w/ images, it'd look a heck of a lot better w/ an image gallery. Anyhow, you still haven't answered the question. I looked at the link (twice) and it does not explain your actions. Chitrapa 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I need to document this - At the start of Specifications, I've changed A-26B-60-DL to A-26B-15-DL, because all the characteristics and performance numbers apply to that version. The A-26B-15-DL used R2800-27 engines, 6-gun nose, framed "flat top" canopy, etc. PeterWD (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I have rationalized the images, enhanced captions, moving some images next to relevant text passages. Also commented out the two airtanker images again, as one was already in List of A-26 Invader Operators article, and I have copied the other one there also. Sorry for any upset, but I believe this is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Also, Third Party Variants section added refs not at hand during original edit.PeterWD (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem moving the two air tanker images to the article at List of A-26 Invader operators. I just didn't realize from your edit summary that is what you had done and wasn't watching that other page. I just didn't want to see them gone entirely from Wikipedia. Thanks for the explanation. I don't see much reason to leave them "commented out" given the move, do you intend to remove the "commented out image links" at some point? - Ahunt (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your agreement, Ahunt. I have reverted bzuk's edits back to my last one, and I hope bzuk will concede :) PeterWD (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But there are multiple errors in format that have also been made. Reverting back to last "clean copy." FWiW, it has nothing to do with conceeding but it does have a lot to do with correct bibliographical formating, there are multiple typos, and errors in style which were corrected. I have no problem in both images appearing on both pages but I do not see the rationale as you laid out. You may also want to look at the List of A-26 Invader operators article which have similar problems. BTW, reversion is only used as a means to turn back "vandalism" which is not the case here. As for the citations required for the new section, after I carefully researched sources for each of the paragraphs, and put them in, there is no need to put in additional cites. Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

75mm CANNON WHAT HAPPENED TO MODEL MODIFIED TO MOUNT A 75MM CANNON?? I WORKED AT DOUGLAS LONG BEACH IN 1942-43 AND THERE WAS A VERSION OF THE A-26 WITH A NOSE MOUNTED 75mm CANON. CLIFF ROSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.151.40 (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting info, Cliff, but we need a published reference to include it. Please see WP:V - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Francillion Air Enthusiast article describes the fitting of a 75 mm cannon on the XA-26B prototype (and also mentions testing of a large number oif other armament configurations tested before settling on the six or eight gun noses) - a ref to it has been added.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nigel: Super stuff, well done! - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Operators' nation flags

An IP editor has been trying (in vain) to add a flag entry for Canada. On reviewing the existing flags, there are evidently some missing. In any case, flags and additional data are both already provided in the List of A-26 Invader operators, so I have removed the flags from this article, due to redundancy. I hope folks agree.PeterWD (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Many of the external links are broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.111.14 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks for pointing that out! No need to keep external links if they are broken links! I have cleaned them up. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

B-26K and A-26A

I see there's a revert war going on over this. To be clear, whatever the caption given on the photo, there was no "A-26K" designation. The 1974 copy of DOD 4120.15-L clearly states that the designation went from B-26K to A-26A. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That squares with everything that I have ever read about the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then if you have the ref please fix the article and cite it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I keep changing this "error" but someone keeps replacing the A with the K.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldthudman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Someone" would be me. As I have asked you repeatedly in the edit summaries and also as per WP:V we need a reference to change this, Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My question is Mr. Ahunt are you in charge on this article....Did you write this article. Despite the fact that you have edited this wikipedia since 2005 doesn't make you an expert......I have 50 years experience around aircraft.....As Mr. Thatguy96 stated there never was a A-26"K"...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldthudman (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pretty much as much experience on aircraft as you do, but that is not relevant here. What you claim to "know" is called original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia, you need to cite a reliable reference. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No the person who put down A-26K is using your so called "Original Research". However Ahunt I've contacted Boeing's, the owner of Douglas assets, history department and I'll get you, Ahunt(this articles owner), the proof that there is no such thing as an A-26"K"....Oldthudman (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldthudman (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to accuse someone of owning an article when they ask you for a ref is not good faith or civil. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL if you want to contribute here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to get that ref for you mr hunt.......99.177.88.83 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign-in to your account when you edit, otherwise it leaves random IP address signatures. And also please sign your name with ~~~~, it saves the bot chasing you around to sign your notes for you. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

factory acceptances of army cognizance airplanes

from USAAF statistical digest WWII (includes experimetal airplanes and US financed canadian production) to august 45 6/43: 1, 9/43: 2, 10/43: 1, 11/43: 1, 12/43: 4, 5, 8, 8, 15, 29, 39, 26, 70, 90, 109, 142, 170, 160, 188, 282, 287, 318, 279, 167, 8/45:48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.213.228 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Classification

Why is this aircraft classified as a light bomber? It has same (or better) range and same (or better) bomb load as a B-25 which has been classified as a medium bomber. What am I missing here? Split Decision (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Typically defined as any bomber with a gross weight of less than 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms), including bombs; for example, the A-26 and its earlier predecessor, the A-20 were considered light bombers in World War II. The A-26 skirted the edge of being classified as a medium bomber. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

Ah, I see - using max lift-off weight instead of payload. Still a bit odd, as a fully loaded Invader seems to weigh as much as the medium B-25. A bit contradictory, though all my references do classify Invader as a light bomber. Split Decision (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack Bomber, part 2

I think the expression needs an explanation, or it should not be used. That explanation could be either in the article or linked. As is, the expression is tautological, as every bomber is by nature an attack bomber. --91.10.13.209 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to correct common usage, and the A-26 is commonly described as an attack bomber.

The term "attack bomber" was coined in the 1930s by American airmen. It means that the aircraft is a fast, relatively light, low-level bomber rather than a high-altitude heavy bomber. An attack bomber is a tactical weapon rather than strategic. It can directly support ground forces. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't explain me, put it in the article, or in an article of itself. The term is non-sensical in itself, I don't doubt that there is common usage, but it should be explained. As it is, the reader has to guess what the difference between an attack bomber an a regular bomber is. Since the term is used as an explanation, this is no help, it even adds to the confusion.

BTW, Attack aircraft does not contain the phrase "attack bomber", and its very first sentence sets up a contrast between bomber and attack aircraft. Thus, the link cannot possibly explain the term "attack bomber".

(Sorry, I undid your changes before I noticed that you replied here.) --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you consider the term to be nonsense does not erase the fact that it has been used by the US military since the '30s to describe low-level tactical aircraft. We are not here to remove a common term because it does not parse. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I will repeat it for you: The term is non-sensical in itself, I don't doubt that there is common usage, but it should be explained. I came here to learn what kind of aircraft the A-26 is, and I learn exactly nothing from the article as I don't know the phrase "attack bomber". The linked articled explains nothing about attack bomber either. --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2012 (U

What is your reason not to explain the phrase? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The explanation for any reader is simply to use the hot link imbedded in the term to find the article on the attack aircraft, that clearly identifies a bomber aircraft engaged in tactical, low-level strike missions/role. BTW, when BRD (Bold-Reverse-Discuss) is involved, the statement in question is reverted back to the original state, not to the contentious, new edit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat it for you: Attack aircraft does not contain the phrase "attack bomber", and its very first sentence sets up a contrast between bomber and attack aircraft. Thus, the link cannot possibly explain the term "attack bomber".

I perfectly willing to let any version stand, as long the matter is discussed here. That's the D in BRD. Your edit comments so far have been misleading or non-existing. Glad you could join us! --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Binksternet just did the job, and this discussion can be closed. Thanks! --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm puzzled by Bzuk's last edit. Does the term "attack bomber" exist at all? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note: this is a simple case of definition. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

(Stop messing up the discussion, use proper indentation. How am I supposed to reply to you without further adding to the confusion?)

Of course it is, I never doubted that. The problem was that the definition was missing. Now the problem appears to be that the term itself is missing. Do "attack bombers" exist at all? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The role as defined today would be "strike aircraft" which encompasses the role of light bomber and attack bomber, both military terms in common usage throughout military aviation history. As World War II military technology evolved, the evolution of dedicated attack aircraft led to the consideration that either single-engine and twin-engine/multi-engine aircraft could be employed. The Curtiss A-18 Shrike being an earlier example of an attack aircraft that essentially was a light bomber. Bombing aircraft with a primary role of tactical strike or attack could include an aircraft such as the Douglas A-26, a potent configuration of speed, light weight and ordnance. FWiW, it appears that edit conflicts have arisen in this "string", necessitating the use of out-dent tabs. Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

(Don't outdent all the time, you are making the discussion harder to follow. Use proper indentation. (Where is the connection between edit conflicts and indentation?))

You don't have to explain it to me, but to the reader of the article. Does the term "attack bomber" exist (even if out of use today)? Is the ~~A-27~~A-26 one example of such? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

After three edit conflicts from your submissions, the out-dent was used to isolate my commentary, so that editors could see them. If you mean the A27 BAE Hawk 127, the aircraft in its tactical role could be described as either a strike aircraft, attack aircraft or attack bomber since bombing is its primary function. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

(Again, where is the connection between edit conflicts and indentation? Are you able to edit concurrently because of the outdent? If not, in what way does the outdent help to resolve the edit conflict? That might be a feature of Wikipedia I'm not aware of, and I would like to know.)

No, that was a typo, I meant the Douglas Invader. Is the Invader an "attack bomber" or not? I'm just trying to get the definition straight. --91.10.13.209 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The terms: attack aircraft, strike aircraft and attack bomber are synonymous, and essentially dependent on the era, were and are interchangeable. The A-26, later B-26 has always been a difficult aircraft type to classify as it was originally designed as a "fast" light bomber, but its turn of speed actually led to a night fighter variant being considered, as well as its use in a low level, tactical role was more akin to that of an attack bomber, in addition to its intended role as a strategic light/medium bomber operating at higher altitudes. Later as designations were being revised, the A-26 (A for Attack) was redesignated the B-26 (leading to the confusion with the contemporary Martin B-26 Marauder that was already retired from U.S. operational use). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

A while ago, you dreamed up a blockable offense out of the fact that I repeat my statements to you. Well, I have to do it again: You don't have to explain it to me, but to the reader of the article.

In particular, if the Invader is an "attack bomber", and the term matches the era, why did you remove it from the article? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To counteract what was a "tempest in a teapot" issue, the revision was the simplest way to resolve an impasse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If it such a teapot, why did you bother?

At the time you made this change, the issue was already resolved, see my comments from 13:56 and 13:59. Please try to reader other editor's posts more carefully in the future. --91.10.13.209 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the banner. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The one you just inserted? Your point? --91.10.13.209 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Single pilot configuration "unusual"?

I take issue with the statement that a single pilot was "unusual" for the early 1940's. At the very least, that needs to be changed to "unusual for US-designed aircraft", because almost every bomber in use by other airforces was designed around a single pilot. The Blenheim, the Manchester, the Halifax, the Sterling, the Hereford: all single pilot. There were no British bombers with two pilot seats; the Halifax COULD carry a second pilot, but never did. The He 111, the Ju 88, the Do 17, the He 177, and their derivatives were all single pilot aircraft. The only two-pilot aircraft in either military were those modified from civilian aircraft, such as the Fw 200 Condor. The Russians had the Pe-2 and Tu-2. The A-26 wasn't even the first US bomber to have a single pilot, since the Havoc was in service before it. The only service besides the US to employ two-pilot bombers extensively was Japan, mostly because they had to deal with pilot fatigue over the long distances their aircraft were designed to operate. Later in the war, most Japanese bombers flew with only one pilot.

Thus, I hardly think that the fact that the A-26 had only one pilot was "unusual". The way it's written, it suggests that the A-26 and the Mosquito were the only ones. Yes, it says "attack aircraft" not "bomber", but I'm not clear what other attack aircraft were used before or during WWII that had more than one pilot. The Il-2, the Hs 123, the Ju 87? All of these were single pilot, single engine aircraft. The only thing that makes the A-26 usual for an attack aircraft is that it's a twin-engine, and it was the A-20 (also single seat) that pioneered that configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In the days of the nineteen twenties and thirties as the size of the largest aircraft increased, with manually-operated i.e,, unpowered, controls, it was possible to get a large bomber or similar aircraft into an attitude or situation, such as a high-speed dive, which was beyond the physical strength of one person to recover from. In simple terms, the stick forces were too high for one man alone. For that reason - and others as well - some of the larger aircraft introduced dual controls, so that when needed, a second pilot could add his effort to the controls. The addition of a second pilot had other advantages as well, such as allowing the first pilot to rest, but generally it was for the reason above that some of the larger heavier aircraft featured two pilots. Smaller aircraft. such as the Boston/Havoc Heinkel III, etc., were small enough - relatively speaking - to not need the additional strength of a second pilot. Later, as designers became more familiar with techniques such as horn balancing, Flettner servo tabs, the control forces became lower and so larger aircraft could be controlled by one pilot safely.

As an example, in the early post-war period, RAE test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown was asked to carry out high-speed dives in the Avro Tudor airliner to see how large aircraft reacted to compressibility. He and his co-pilot managed to reach Mach 0.7 on the last dive but it took the combined strength of both of them on the unpowered controls to pull out of the dive. That was the end of the tests, as any faster dives and they would been unable to recover from them and would have made a big hole in the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.47 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Museum photos

Three museum display photos have been removed by an IP editor and now by User:Signaleer twice. User: Bzuk and myself have reverted the removal. I think these add a perspective beyond the operation service of the aircraft to the article and in particular the in-flight shot shown here is a unique view and should be retained. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES these should not have been removed in the first place without discussion first. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First, only two images were removed.

First Deleted Photograph

Static display

A-26C Dropping Ordnance during Korean War.

There are three other images of static displays. To argue the A-26C is not represented in the article, there is a wartime image of an A-26C dropping ordnance during the Korean War. This more than provides adequate images showing the image of the A-26 in a static display as well as the aircraft conducting combat operations.

Second Deleted Photograph

Second Image Deleted

Rear 3/4 angle image.

To say this image provides a "unique" angle is questionable since there are already three images that provide similar angles of the one I deleted. So again, I fail to see your argument and how it holds up to wiki standards. The last image of the Vietnam War-era aircraft is almost identical in terms of camera position and aircraft albeit mirrored.

Signaleer (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check again. Your edit removed three images. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. These are the images Your edit removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A-26B (44-34602), registered N167B at Duxford, UK July 2008 (note windows and airstair door from conversion as Rock Island Monarch)
A-26C-50-DT 44-35918 marked as A-26B 434287 "Versatile Lady" USAF History and Traditions Museum
B-26 Invader at Royal Saudi Air Force Museum in Riyadh

Okay, there were three images. Now that we established that, please address the issues I have pointed out and how those images support the article to what is already an over saturated article full of static displays and same aircraft models.

Signaleer (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First off I don't think the article is overloaded with images such that we need to reduce the number of them. It is a long article and there are substantial gaps in between images. The in-flight image shows a unique view point of the aircraft's right side from above in flight, but more uniquely shows after-market modifications. The second image would be the only one in the article of a static display museum aircraft in military markings and thus representative of how most aircraft are seen these days. The third photo shows the aircraft in Saudi markings and represents the many non-western users of the type. As it stands right now there is one image of an A-26 in French military markings, while the rest of the military aircraft images are all of US service. As such I believe all three serve encyclopedic purposes and should be retained. I should also point out that WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES makes the point "Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion." Meaning that the onus should be making the case to remove these, not to retain them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for reverting the original deletion stems from the concern that any editor can make a unilateral and singular decision but if it involves controversy or contentiousness, then a consensus of "interested" editors should be involved. When I first noticed the deletions, I read the captions and looked at the "value" that the images provided and saw that their removal may lessen the overall direction that the article had taken, i.e., an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the type. The number of images did not seem excessive for a major article nor was the notion that images of "static" aircraft were not as useful as an image of a "flying" subject, a valid reason for removal. The images appear to not be selected for decorative or other capricious purposes and in reading back the edit history on the images, they have also had a lengthy period of acceptance as part of this article. For all these reasons, I would strongly support the continued use of the images in question. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted images. While there are probably too many images in the article, there are images of poorer quality that might ought to be deleted first. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the museum/display images could be moved to the List of surviving Douglas A-26 Invaders article, but we'd need to remove that idiotic table first, which prevents adding more images to the article. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with tables per se, but that list could do with the flying ones separating out first, then the statics. I suspect the thing that needs most attention to is not lack of images in the list article, but how dated the info is. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A table isn't the best format for that type of article, as it limits the amount of info per entry, which can vary a lot, besides being difficult to sort or add new information. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the wikimedia pages on the A/B-26, B-26 Invaders, Korea and B-26 nose art there is a wide variety of images to choose from, some of which will be better than those in the article; I would suggest that images be chosen that address some of the issues of "sameness" - albeit there are often a limited number of perspectives from which photos are taken - and provide better all round views of the aircraft. For example, I have taken the liberty of changing the heading photo to a colour image of an early operational A-26 which is not only a reasonably good perspective of an early operational A-26, but it is also of historical value because it shows an aircraft of the Project Squadron that initiated the A-26 into combat. As it is many of the images seem to have been used at random so, for example, while there are two short paragraphs on the Pacific the image used has no association with that theatre, whereas there are at least two available:

Possible new images

8th BS, 3rd BG Okinawa

319th BG Pacific theatre

I suggest that better, more imaginative use be made of the images that are available ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 07:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully refute the suggestion that a table is inappropriate for list articles of surviving or displayed aircraft. It provides discipline to present a concise summary for each aircraft (ie without aircraft histories), links to WP articles, sortable on column headers, easy for anyone to edit, and the facility (if required) to add links to Commons images. The A-26 list article is also as up to date as I can discover in reliable refs. Surely, list articles are not supposed to be regular narrative with pretty pictures?PeterWD (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Me like pwetty pictures. No take me pwetty pictures away pwease. :P - BilCat (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with removing the photos. A bunch of poorly framed photos of the noses of static display aircraft adds nothing unless this is an article on the static display aircraft. For instance, I see no reason to have both the yellow, red and black aircraft - they all show basically the same thing from the same angles. So do many of the other images, and there are a lot of them. I strongly support Minor's concept of adding images that actually show something new. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's be sure to include the in-flight photograph taken at Duxford. That's a great snapshot. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, keeping the inflight top view is a good idea, & deleting the B&W rear 3/4-view I wouldn't oppose. Either of the "commercial" static display shots could go, but I'd keep one, for illustration of postwar use. (My pick would be the yellow number.) For the others, I like the shot of twins with the glazing, & the inflight group shot; the "flight line" shot is a bit fuzzy for my liking. (Something like it, but sharp, would get my vote over the "twins".) And let me vote in favor of leaving things alone till there's agreement on it. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started the ball rolling by adding images of XA-26s plus some other clear or colour images of operational A/B-26s; there's still lots of scope for improving the article overall. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Biafra

What does "provisionally armed" mean in the context of Biafra?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Douglas A-26 Invader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference comments on visibility - - A-26's lost at RAF Warton, Lancashire, England

Good evening, I note some comments regarding visibility and also deployment to Europe. If you review video available on YouTube of a UK program called Time Team, Series 12, episode 3, parts of two A-26's were recovered from the marshes near Warton aerodrome. They had collided mid-air in poor weather on initial deployment to France from Warton. It is believed from what was recovered (note we have not seen all the evidence as program editing takes place) that one aircraft lost sight of it's 6 ship formation, and on re-entering cloud after a standard maneouvre, the combination of poor weather, close flying and the poor visibility from the cockpit contributed to a collision with the tail end charlie of the preceding group, cutting out the lower rear fuselage and colliding port wing to port wing causing the loss of both aircraft. Following the incident, formation flying procedures are said to have been changed and no further losses in formation due to collision were experienced.

Further details and named contacts may be found here in the program if you wish to pursue and add in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh-wjgbJtWk&list=PLiw5X7jx1CEPDgVO50PeNyGNOhYni4_kX&index=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.64.173 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Douglas A-26 Invader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507070003/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10027 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10027
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023023357/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=301 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=301
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.hurlburt.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3422
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.contrails.us/sh_a-26/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)