Talk:John Boyd (military strategist)

Citations

The following showed-up under page changes:

Line 46: Line 46:

In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying "The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he'd commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert."

Don't know how to do a citation, but both "needs citations" above are in "http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316881465" and "Mind of War."

==The OODA Loop==

I do not have access to these sources, and neither source is viewable on Google Books. I think, however, it should be noted that a Wikipedian has pointed towards citations for these "Citation needed" tags, and with someone else's help we might resolve them...or at least postpone deletion indefinitely waiting resolution. TeamZissou (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Incest?

A paragraph of the Incest article leads the reader to this John Boyd Article..

Sometimes the word "incestuous" is also used metaphorically to describe other inappropriately close relationships, for example between an authority figure and a subordinate, or between people in the same profession or creative field. The term "incest group" is also common in high school, and denotes a group of friends that only date others within their group. Institutions such as churches, colleges, and sometimes whole nations can be described as incestuous when inappropriately close relationships, corrupt conflicts of interest and secret collusions occur inside the institution and especially within the institution's top echelons such as in cases John Boyd exposed in the Pentagon.

Please verify. 69.196.4.153 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's a very astute and likely accurate observation. The Incest article currently does not have the link; nor does it include any obvious content on metaphorical use of the term. Given the typical scope of wiki article, probably best left here on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The article reads too much like an advertisement for Boyd, accepting his claims uncritically. For instance, that stuff about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has very little to do with what the theorem actually states. It is rather doubtful that Boyd understood any of it. Leibniz 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it has a lot to do with what the theorem states. The essence of the theorem is that a static logical system cannot fully capture all truth. If Boyd didn't understand it then I would have to say Chaitin didn't either http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/sciamer3.html because both of them concluded the same thing that a static logical system would not work according to Godel's theorem and would require the addition of new axioms in the light of new information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.163.84 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. A "static logical system", as you put it, is a set of axioms in some formal language, e.g. the Peano axioms, stuff like that. That has nothing to do with what some Colonel knows or does not know about what the enemy is up to. Chaitin's pop-logic salesmanship is lamentable if it promotes such confusions. Leibniz 13:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• No offense, but that Colonel did have a Master's degree in engineering. Please don't judge the work unless you've read it - Boyd's work (which is available online in many sources) adapted concepts from multiple disciplines to achieve new conclusions and techniques for command and control theory.

Now the language may need to be toned down in terms of advertising. But the guy wrote the Air Force Air to Air tactics manual, ran the air force's "Top Gun" equivalent school for years; developed energy maneuverability theory (which is now industry standard for fighter design); consulted on the F15 program, developed the F16 and consequent F18 program; not to mention lots of later esoteric work that was fully embraced by the USMC and many foreign militaries. He made several legitimate contributions to military science over several decades. Arguing semantics of a sound bite from his work hardly seems relevant unless you can authoritatively compare and contrast his work in detail using verifiable sources. The remarks about Boyd's adaptation of or inspiration from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is verifiable in several references. This is encyclopedic content; not a debate on validity of academic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it might be helpful to rewrite this section to say that metamathematics and quantum physics inspired Boyd's theory. Fighter pilots are not electrons, so laws describing electrons don't apply to fighter pilots. Fighter pilots are not strings of mathematical symbols, so laws describing strings of mathematical symbols don't apply to fighter pilots. On the other hand a creative mind can find some useful simile between these vastly different phenomena.--Tkadlubo (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In the article as it stands, I don't see an assertion that his use of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics were valid. Indeed, ask any physicist, and you will be told that they were not, strictly speaking. However, this doesn't mean that his conclusions are wrong. If a critique of his recommendations on military strategy is to be attempted, I suspect that it would properly be based not on weaknesses in the OODA idea itself, but instead in the fact that while the blitzkrieg is all very well when one is on the offensive, a peaceful nation as opposed to an aggressor will not always have the luxury of that choice (and guerilla warfare as an option raises another issue). It's probably better, not worse, for the objectivity of the article that it didn't go there. Quadibloc (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The person I would prefer to see comment on Boyd's biography would be John Perry Barlow. While not obvious, Barlow wrote an opinion piece in the Communications of the ACM. Barlow was critical of the USAF style synoptic view of WWII management. 74.95.195.137 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I may not have the best heading on this talk page. Some articles on members have a template for ranks, and date of rank. I highly recommend this template for Mr John Boyd. Wfoj2 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It could equally be said that this article contains a number of thinly-veiled attempts to discredit Boyd: the constant references to him scoring no kills, for example, is an extremely simplistic criticism which doesn’t need stating more than once. Equally, we don’t need a debate on whether or not his computer time was paid for. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopaedia grade information and is not a platform for low-ball arguments. Flanker235 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The references to him not firing his guns and scoring No kills are important, because he is frequently cited as a combat veteran in order to enhance his credibility. While this is technically true it is misleading. I agree with you on the not paying for computer time part though. YEEETER0 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That reference is Col Michel's dissertation, which contains 161 references to Boyd. However, a careful reading of them reveals that Col Michel was not a contemporary of Boyd, did not know him personally, and only knew him by reputation. Further, Col Michel clearly has an axe to grind, as every reference to him is perjorative. A careful reading of his work gives the following the following citations for his information about Boyd: Coram's book, private emails from Gen Wilbur Creech, and an oral interview with Boyd from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. (Corona Ace interview #K239.0512-1066, AFHRA) Other than Coram's book, none of these sources can be independently verified. Michel states in his dissertation that Boyd deliberately avoided flying a combat tour in Vietnam, something for which he offers no sources and could not have personally known. Most importantly, there is NO reference in Col Michel's book to any actual official record of Boyd's time in combat. His statement is little more than hearsay and is clearly made in order to detract from his reputation. (Col Michel's viewpoint, in his own words on p. 81, is that Boyd was "glib, iconoclastic, ambitious, (and) self-aggrandizing") Definitely not a neutral point of view.

Boyd's brief tour of duty towards the end of the Korean War as a junior officer was at a period when there was little conflict going on. I would suggest that a brief statement to the effect that "Boyd briefly flew F-86 Sabres for two months as a junior officer immediately before the armistice in the Korean War" would be a neutral way of summarizing his unremarkable experience in combat. Drlmd2013 (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update to my prior comment: This article by Dr Michael Hankins, who has taught at the USAF Air Command and Staff College and and the Air Force Academy, contains the same information about Boyd's Korean War career as the Michel dissertation, but worded in a more neutral fashion and placed in context of the air combat tactics of the times:

https://balloonstodrones.com/2018/08/22/a-discourse-on-john-boyd-a-brief-summary-of-the-us-air-forces-most-controversial-pilot-and-thinker/comment-page-1/

"First, we must deal with the notion of Boyd as – according to Hammond – ‘a premier fighter pilot.’ Some have referred to Boyd as the greatest fighter pilot who ever lived, and many press outlets mistakenly refer to him as an ace. Although Boyd did fly F-86 Sabres during a brief tour in the Korean War, he does not have a single air-to-air kill to his credit. He never fired his gun in a combat situation. This is not necessarily an indictment of his skills. The reason is that in those years, the USAF tended to fly in formations in which only the lead element was cleared to fire, while the wingmen provided protection. Boyd only ever flew in a wingman position, and never got in an opportunity to fire at enemy MiG-15s." Drlmd2013 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

that's a rather weak explanation. Boyd never firing his guns would only make sense if the the only enemies he engaged were single fighters that his lead was able to dispatch with little difficulty. There are numerous scenarios in which an wingman can be cleared to fire. Combat is dynamic and the idea that Boyd spent his entire tour in Korea glued to his flight-lead seems pretty moronic and inconsistent with how pilots from the time describe combat. The wingman isn't just a spectator.

https://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Fighter%20Combat-Tactics%20and%20Maneuvering.pdf YEEETER0 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

While it may be true that Michel doesn't maintain a neutral point of view on Boyd, it is certainly true that Coram does the same in the opposite direction. And yet, Coram's "Hagiography" (to quote the same article by Dr. Hankins) seems to be the primary source for this article and its tone, while Michel's dissertation is used only as a secondary source.

If Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, why is there not even a section of this article that discusses the controversies surrounding Boyd's legacy, or the fact that most of the sources used to support that legacy are either Boyd himself or one of his friends/cronies? Danielstats (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wars

My recollection from reading a biography on Boyd was that he served in Vietnam, but not as a pilot like he was in the Korean War. In fact he intentionally got himself sent to Vietnam and ran a small base if not mistaken, just so he could be recognized for that service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whidbey (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No source material supplied for that recollection. --Born2flie (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Time as a base commander in Vietnam is in the Coram Biography referenced at the bottom of the article. Not to mention available in Air Force Service records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused Theories

The article similarly confuses Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with chaos theory. Uncertainty in the common venacular says that observation affects the outcome, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Boyd. Chaos says that small pertubations in a complex system can cause large changes in outcome, especially if the system involves feedback loops. Air combat is certainly a feedback loop between the combatants, and so at least Chaos Theory may be relevant to this topic.

I don't know enough Boyd history to know whether Boyd was confused about Heisenberg and Chaos, or if it is just the writers of this article who are confused. In either case it should be fixed, either by deleting the Heisenberg reference entirely, or by explaining some confusion in Boyd's writings about Heisenberg. Crispincowan 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the confusion of chaos with Heisenberg and entropy. Chaos theory became widely known much more recently than the other stuff, so it looks like anachronistic additions to Boyd's pseudoscience. Leibniz 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my book Science Stragtegy and War, the strategic Theory of John Boyd, I have carefully tried to trace Boyd's study of scientific literature. He read quite a number of primary and secondary studies of a wide variety of subjects. This included Godel, Heisenberg, Wiener, Popper, Kuhn, Chaitin, and later authors on chaos and complexity theory, but also studies on evolution, organizational learning and neurophysiology. He fully grasped the essence of the concepts he found in such works and was convinced of the wider implications, and that those ideas also had relevance for the study of strategy. He may have simplified and perhaps not always appropriately employed those concept in his communication with a largely non-scientifically oriented audience, but I believe that Hawkins, Greene or Dawkins were guilty of that too sometimes. (Frans Osinga) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.62.178 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:39, 4 May 2007

Read and study more, assume less

To all who made comments about Boyd's lack of knowledge about Heisenburg and Goedel's theory, read his essay entitled Destruction & Creation first, and then disagree with his use of these theories if you still think it wrong.Stanleywinthrop 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Read any of his material and understand it, and then try again. Boyd was a genius on the order of Sun Tzu, both as an engineer and a military strategist. Not to mention the best damn fighter pilot that ever lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.144.226 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Boyd may have been all that but he was proven wrong in one thing; that F-4's cannot compete, much less survive against MiG-17's, 19's and 21's in dogfights! His re-education was courtesy of instructors from TOPGUN. Read the book "A Scream Of Eagles". WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry pal, Boyd never claimed that the F-4 was superior to the Migs (although the F-4 did acheive a positive kill ratio against those aircraft by the end of the vietnam war.) In face the E-M theory that Boyd invented proved that the MIGs were superior aircraft in terms of manuverability.Stanleywinthrop (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to second on that – the F4 comment doesn't make sense. But to clarify – The F4 was well known to all as unable to turn in a dog fight, and initially lacked guns – having a distinct disadvantage given 1960's era AAM's. Boyd's F4 and MIG EM profiles for the Air Force show that. The F4 can compete against MIGs using decades old Dick Bong P38 tactics – use superior speed and altitude and stay out of a turning fight you can't win. Given appropriate tactics Navy, Marine, and Air Force crews were all successful engaging F4's against a variety of Vietnam era MIGs, even ones flown by Soviet Pilots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Notes

There are a couple citations that are problematic. Specifically, one that states, "Conversation with Franklin C. Spinney, 1998", and another which says, "the writer witnessed one such incident in 1983." Neither of these seem to meet the intent of WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I have not removed those parts of the article as I am not familiar with the source material for the subject of the article. I'm hoping by commenting here, that someone knowledgeable about the subject matter and actively participating in editing this article will address the issue appropriately. --Born2flie (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I recognize those references – They are the primary References used in Coram's Biography or possibly Hammond's Book. And should be re refrenced as such should anybody have the time to look up the refrences and get page numbers. Also Frans Osinga's book should be referenced in the sections on Boyd's technical work ; Corman wrote the biography and Hammond's work is much less rigorous in technical detail.

Honestly the whole article is incomplete, and covers a very esoteric and hard to explain subject – so expect lots of confusion and debate on the details. The only guys I've seen that get it are ranking officer instructors at war colleges, aka "Professional Practitioners of Violence." (Their words, not mine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2flie is right – these are unverifiable statements, and don't belong in this article until they are. I'm removing them. If you replace them, the onus is on you to cite sources that support them. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Link broken

Unfortunately, Chet Richards's website has been abandoned. I have fixed the general link to Boyd's briefings & monographs by changing the url to Air Power Australia, an online magazine that mirrored this material before the Richards website ceased to exist. Alas, the Oz site does not seem to have picked up the Cowan thesis upon which so much of this article is based. I'll look further for it. Absent that, equivalent references must be found in the two existing Boyd biographies (probably where Cowan got his material anyhow!). Eschatologicalguy (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strategist or thinker?

First, well done everyone for such a good article on a richly-deserved subject. But the article calls him a strategist – was he not a military thinker at all levels? He certainly did a lot to influence the tactics of air combat and ground attack, as well as trying to reform military procurement. In my book that makes him an all-round military thinker, not just a strategist. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article still reads like John Boyd wrote it himself - and he was a notorious self-promoter. Boyd flew less than a full tour in Korea, reportedly never even fired his guns, and definitely never got a kill. He then avoided Vietnam, almost uniquely among Vietnam-era American pilots. Boyd never flew a contemporary fighter jet in combat: his short tour in Korea was in P-80 Shooting Stars, the first jet fighter the USAF had, not even in the later F-86 Saber. He never flew planes like the F-100, F-105, or F-4 against planes like MiG-21s or even MiG-19s: the plane he flew in combat was more alike to WWII fighters than even the Century series, let alone the Teen series..

After Vietnam the US Navy and US Air Force independently concluded they needed large twin-engine fighters mounting large radars for beyond visual range combat, based on their combat data. Boyd and his group insisted that instead the USN and USAF should be developing larger numbers of light, cheap planes, with limited avionics, exclusively intended for air to air combat. The F-5 Freedom Fighter is probably the closest thing to what Boyd recommended that ever entered service. The LWF program did lead to the F-16 and F/A-18 by way of YF-17, but neither plane became what Boyd was pushing for. Both are mult-role planes for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Both carry radar and complex avionics suites. Contrary to the article here, Boyd actually disagreed so strongly with what eventuated from the LWF program that he advocated the F-20 Tigershark over the F-16 - yet even he had made a concession in that the F-20 mounted radar, something he was originally opposed to. Even the A-10, simple as it is, was given complex avionics and high tech weapons like the AGM-65 Maverick.

Boyd's ideas on aircraft design were wrong. Sophisticated avionics are now at the heart of a plane's performance, whereas Boyd considered them useless: unnecessary weight and drag, expensive, and unreliable. He thought a plane should rely on the eyeball for detection and heat-seeking missiles and cannon for killing enemy aircraft. Radar guided missiles like the AMRAAM or Russian AA-71 "Adder" are now the primary weaponry of modern fighter planes, followed by heat-seekers like the Sidewinder, and cannon as last resort, not the primary armament. Moreover, credit is given here for things he had no responsibility for. The F-4 Phantom II omitted cannon on the basis that missiles were the wave of the future, while the F-106 Delta Dart, F-105 Thunderchief, F-104 Starfighter, and F-100 Super Saber all had cannon prior to that; the F-101 Voodoo and F-102 Delta Dagger both omitted cannon since they were intended to destroy bombers at long range using radar guided missiles, not engage in combat with fighters. Vietnam experience proved that the Phantom's lack of cannon was a liability, and the USAF F-4E reintroduced cannon. The F-14 and F-15 also had cannon. The re-adoption of cannon had absolutely nothing to do with Boyd.

The best that can be said for Boyd's ideas about aircraft is that "lighter" and "cheaper" aircraft than the F-14 and F-15 were adopted. But these were not as light (25,000lb loaded) nor as cheap as Boyd envisioned, and carry avionics suites with capabilities like laser guidance for bombs, radar guided missiles, night vision, infra-red sensors, terrain following radar, et cetera. Even modern heat-seekers are best fired when the target is being tracked by radar. His belief in the primacy of maneuverability was foolish even before he ever articulated it. The average armchair wing commander is familiar with the fact that the Japanese Zero had superb maneuverability, but was trounced by less agile planes like the F6F Hellcat that had the power to engage and disengage at will. The power that designs like the F-14 and particularly F-15 have allows them to dictate the terms of engagement.

Whatever Boyd's merits, this article entirely glosses over his shortcomings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.140.116 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's your chance. FWiW FWiW (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC).

You said it FWiW. And you, 124.148.140.116, have you actually read any of the books on Boyd? Provide some citations for the things you claim. 132.3.61.82 (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The two Boyd biographies both report that Boyd exclusively flew the F-86 in Korea. His brief time there was also towards the end of that conflict, after the P-80 had been replaced by F-86. Thus, your statement above that Boyd flew the P-80 in Korea would seem to be incorrect. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the meaning of "neutrality" with respect with Wikipedia articles is that the article truthfully reports what the REFERENCES say. If the references are highly positive on a point or person, as is the case with Boyd, then "neutral" writing is to report that without trying to insert unsubstantiated negative bias. To insert negative bias where the references do not report it is highly non-neutral. The only negative point any references make about Boyd is that he did not suffer incompetence even when displayed by general officers, and as a result he was sometimes personally abrasive. The references are in close to 100% agreement on his professional brilliance. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Boyd was a fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY . 202.63.77.23 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Serial Computer Crook?

In a recent newsgroup discussion, someone referred to a man named Boyd unofficially using computer time to design the F-16, and someone from the company that made the F-15 (presumably McDonnell Douglas) trying to have him put away for life.

After looking up the matter, and finding this web page, I presumed the poster had the story garbled and was really referring to the computer time used to prove the Energy-Maneuverability Theory. Presumably on the 7090 they had at Elgin AFB at the time.

However, after I noted this in the relevant discussion, someone else joined in, and said that he was present at a lecture by the person who helped Boyd get access to computer resources for designing the F16, long after the E-M Theory work had already taken place.

This makes me wonder if, just possibly, Wikipedia has the garbled story. Not that lightning can't strike twice. Quadibloc (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Family/Personal Life

Robert Coram, author of, "Boyd," stated in an interview about his book that,

• CORAM: "...the only dark side to Boyd that I could find other than some personality quirks was his family, and frankly I cut out several hundred pages after the book was finished because the real situation is far more bleak than is portrayed in the book. It`s just beyond description."
• LAMB: "In what way?"
• CORAM: "In ways that were so bad I didn`t want to put them in the book because it would be disconcerting from what his life was all about."
• LAMB: "Are you talking about the family part of this?"
• CORAM: "Yes. Yes."

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/158365-1/Robert+Coram.aspx

I haven't been able to find too much about the specifics of his family life, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silavite (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Revolt of the Majors

Reference 10, "Revolt of the Majors," seems suspect regarding Boyd. I was discussing it with someone else and they said,

"""This thesis is just odd. I got intrigued and read about half so far. When the author discusses history of air-air warfare and how fighter design evolved out of Vietnam – to include the emergence of TOPGUN and RED FLAG – it seems well researched and written. But then he throws in these comments about Boyd and the whole writing style changes – very snarky.

I have done significant research my self in the related subjects and was close to some of this from Navy side. Given that it’s focus is Air Force, found some things I hadn’t seen explained before. But he’s written 450+ pages with an apparent agenda to downplay – and not nicely – anything John Boyd did.

And he is just flat wrong and misleading in places. One example. He notes that Boyd briefed the TOPGUN group shortly after their beginning and got in a disagreement over the F-4 and MIG 17, Boyd claiming an F-4 could never beat a 17. Supposedly the TOPGUN CO Mugs McKuen disagreed. This is disingenuous. Mugs was up at VX-4 working Have Donut/Drill and then in VF-161 on Midway (readyroom next to mine) getting two MIG kills before coming back to be TOPGUN CO in mid-72. Did they meet, have an argument I’m guessing yes. Navy vs AF and Mugs was everything you think about attitude wise as a fighter pilot. For F-4 vs MIG-17 in energy maneuverability terms/technical analysis Boyd was right. No US fighter could turn with the 17. From pure performance numbers Phantom was in clear disadvantage. The F-4 and F-8 had to go vertical. That was one reason the EM curves were so valuable- it showed where tactics had to be adjusted because of mismatch in pure performance.

Every “insert” related to Boyd seems intended to be negative and is unbalanced. So far it is a detractor and glancing at his closing that’s where he goes. Just odd.

OBTW as an example he links Boyd’s group – noting Chet Richard’s Defense and the National Interest as anti-military. Huh?""" 2602:304:68AD:7AE0:2D8A:BC9:B1C1:2F9B (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Michel definitely has an ax to grind against all of the Fighter Mafia, the defense reformers (which he labels Critics), and all of their ideas. E-M, OODA loop, maneuver warfare, corruption in the Pentagon, radar-guided missiles (which Michel acknowledges as failures in Vietnam), BVR combat, cost-effectiveness in airplanes, the importance of CAS, the uselessness of interdiction bombing... Michel argues against all of it. There isn't anything he likes from the reformers/"Critics".

The Wikipedia article states: Boyd was invited to Top Gun to brief the instructors on his "Energy Maneuverability" charts. Boyd's briefing did not go well. When Boyd insisted that it was impossible for the F-4 to win a dogfight against a MiG-17, the Top Gun instructors disagreed, two of them having shot down MiG-17s in combat. Commander Ron Mugs McKeown later said "Never trust anyone who would rather kick your ass with a slide rule than with a jet."

The Wikipedia article cites Michel's book as the source. here's what Michel's book says:

While energy maneuverability was by now a common buzzword in the air-to-air community, Boyd's briefing did not go well. Boyd, who had not flown for over five years, insisted it was impossible for an F-4 to win a dogfight with the highly maneuverable MiG-17. The Top Gun instructors disagreed (at least two had shot down MiG-17s in dogfights), but Boyd was adamant in saying it was impossible. The Top Gun instructors left the briefing unimpressed by Boyd and his plethora of charts and graphs, and the unit's commander, Commander Ron "Mugs" McKeown, said later: "never trust anyone who would rather kick your ass with a slide rule than with a jet."

Looking through Michel's footnote, it seems that Michel is bending the facts to fit his story. Pages 185-186 of Robert K. Wilcox's book Scream of Eagles (search it with Google Books) talks about a screaming match between Boyd and Holmes. It seemed that they both agreed that the F-4 was an inferior dogfighter but Holmes argued that the human element could overcome it. The book also notes that Boyd's E-M studies "had become classic" and were works that "Holmes was incorporating into the syllabus". "unimpressed by Boyd" does not seem like the correct characterization. The book does not talk about slide rules, suggesting that the annecdote is Michel's. Glennchan (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's the wrong page in Wilcox's book for the reference. The actual refference is "145-146." IDK why when trying to debunk the McKeown story you're bringing up a different story. If your going to say he's "bending the facts to fit his story" you'd have to show that the facts of that reference are substatially different from what mitchel writes.

Also I don't feel like you are being realy honest with what the book says. Holms's opinion and disagreement was fundamentally the same as McKeown and the top gun instructors, and in the passage that you quoted the the revolt of the majors makes the same statement about energy management when it says "While energy maneuverability was by now a common buzzword in the air-to-air community," It acknowledges it's popularity just like the story you brought up.

Fundamentally these two stories are the same. Instructors set up a meeting with the inventor of the EM theory to get his insight. Boyd makes wild claims that his audiance disbelieves. Arguement ensues. In wilcoxes book holmses opinion of boyd after the meeting is never stated, and the section where "The book also notes that Boyd's E-M studies "had become classic" and were works that "Holmes was incorporating into the syllabus"" before it ralks about the actual meeting. YEEETER0 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove Michel's less substantiated claims.

Hi Glennchan. I think you were involved in cleaning up the article on Pierre Sprey a few years ago. I have found a couple of problems in this article and so I have added an NPOV tag. I posted my reasons here at the bottom of the talk page. Someone immediately reverted it and didn’t discuss the matter. At the same time they actually reverted a separate spelling error I corrected weeks ago!! I thought that was kind of funny. The problem, of course, is that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic content. As it stands, I don’t think it meets the requisite standard. YMMV. Flanker235 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Military Theorist

Since Boyd was neither involved in military planning (his role in Desert Storm is apocryphal and limited at best) nor was his major work on Strategy, isn't it about time the title of the article is changed from Military Strategist to Military Theorist? SetSenet (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Hello. It seems several sentences in the article display the opinions of the author of his biography as fact. Like being a maverick, revolutionizing design, and it also leaves out some important details like Rutowski’s work on EMT a decade prior. It would be more accurate to say Boyd repurposed existing work. Also, he didn’t design any airplanes. He was an advisor who gave a list of specifications to engineers. One of these was no radar. There is also a few instances of non neutral tone. LastMonarchist (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The section on his impact on the gulf war unintentionally misleads the reader about what role boyd played in the strategy. The only source is a quote by Krulak written to honor the life of Boyd to inside the pentagon. There is an important section of this quote cut off where Krulak clarified that boyd was not involved with the planning, his ideas instead inspired some of the planners. LastMonarchist (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. It seems this article is disproportionately sourced from a biography on Boyd which took most of its information from what boyd and other fighter pilot mafia members claimed. Majority of the info is not backed up by neutral sources. Would it be possible to alter text to show which parts are solely sourced from the biographer? LastMonarchist (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@LastMonarchist: I've looked some of the content you challenge. I agree that there are issues. I'll list them and possible fixed when I have a little more time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbrittithank you LastMonarchist (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll get started on this sometime today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Didn’t notice any citations or external links to this peer-reviewed source:

“John Boyd always said the choice facing us all is "To Be or To Do."

Paradoxically, Genghis John did things—and still ended up being somebody.”

USNI Genghis John

GeoVenturing (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Profile of "USNI Genghis John" article:

Franklin C. Spinney

GeoVenturing (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV 2023

I have added this tag because there are sections of this article which are of dubious relevance but appear to have been added to discredit Boyd. This is a similar situation to what happened in the article about fellow Fighter Mafia member, Pierre Sprey and comes from the same source: Marshall L. Michel III’s doctoral thesis. While Michel may have good reasons for saying these things, it is noteworthy that much of what he says is a matter of opinion and comes from a time during the Vietnam War when there were opinions flying around thick and fast about how the Air Force should proceed. We are not obliged to accept his point of view as fact.

My concerns about this don’t relate to Michel’s point of view. He is a published author and he appears to be a credible source. I am more concerned about the way the information has been presented in the article, with particular reference to the fact that Boyd flew ‘only’ 22 missions in Korea and never fired his guns in anger, before going back to the US to become an instructor. Clearly Michel had skin in the game because he was a Vietnam War fighter pilot. But that doesn’t mean his is the only perspective. I’d be happy to leave the comment in, provided it is balanced with a second opinion but It’s not our job, as Wikipedia editors, to go down the rabbit hole of internecine intra-service rivalries.

As someone on the Pierre Sprey Talk page suggested, such matters should be left to a separate article. Flanker235 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Would whoever reverted this, kindly discuss the matter first? Flanker235 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Flanker235: Hi! I've reverted you twice for adding the wrong template to the article and for failing to adequately explain why you felt there was an NPOV issue. The correct template is {{POV statement}} (see Template:POV statement for how to fill out this template and link to this talk section). Note that I've renamed this talk section to "NPOV 2023" as there already existed a section on this talk page named "NPOV", which would have prevented proper linking. If you wish to use the template you have been inserting, please place it at the top of the article below the short description and before any images or infoboxes.

Your critiques of the current phrasing to this article in particular are reasonable. I think a rephrase of his lack of combat service could improve the article's neutrality. Would you mind suggesting an alternate phrasing? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But couldn't you have talked about it first? The adequate explanation is right here. In other NPOV examples I have been involved with, it was up for discussion before the tag was removed and not just reverted without any explanation. It is my understanding that an NPOV tag, irrespective of which one is used, is there until an agreement has been reached. I don't just go about randomly putting NPOV tags in articles. This one is pretty toxic and a quick scan of the topics on this talk page gives you some idea of the depths people are prepared to plumb.

As a side issue, it needs to be pointed out that, while you can't actually defame a dead person, there are all kinds of legal questions that can be raised about identifying family members if we are even going to have that topic on the Talk page. I am not a lawyer but I have a background in publishing and a lot of stuff here is potentially actionable. If you're going to be the policeman here, I'd suggest you go about it a bit more carefully. Flanker235 (talk)

@Flanker235: You used the wrong template, which is why it was reverted, and you have now failed to identify specifically what the issue is. Also, if you think someone is being defamed in some capacity, explicitly identify the sentences that are problematic and why they are so. I am less convinced that there is an issue now and believe your insertion of the POV tag may have been based on a poor understanding of what constitutes WP:NPOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See my first post in this thread. Everything is explained there. I'm still trying to work out how that template works and you will have to be patient. Whether or not I convince you of my understanding of NPOV is not particularly important, particularly if you base it on my use of what you call 'the wrong template'. In that case, on your own head be it. You have been advised about the implications of content matters. This article talk page is bordering on character assassination and this comes from someone who doesn't care one way or the other about the subject of this profile but cares greatly about the quality of encyclopaedic content, some of which is frankly outrageous. Flanker235 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Flanker235: Your concerns appear to be that the Michel source is used and the information it provides suggests Boyd may have not been an expert (I see it as more indicating a biographical fact). Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Michel's writing has been affirmed as a reliable source in a couple other discussions (see this discussion, for example) and we will likely follow those precedent. If you believe we're bordering on character assassination, please quote the passages and demonstrate how they are defamatory; your initial comments rest heavily on your view of Michel's opinions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The two passages in the article I have explained are:

"In the two months until the armistice on July 27, Boyd flew a short tour (22 missions instead of 100) in F-86 Sabres during the Korean War during which he served as a wingman and never fired his guns or claimed an aerial kill."

and

"A legendary maverick by reputation,[7] Boyd was said to have stolen the computer time to do the millions of calculations necessary to prove the theory,[8] but a later audit found that all of computer time at the facility has been properly billed to recognized projects and that no irregularity could be prosecuted."

The first I have already indicated that it is a detail too many. A 'short tour' is a relative term. In WWII, 22 missions would have been a significant number, whether he fired his guns or not. It simply looks like it is there to discredit him. 'A short tour' is sufficient. I knew someone who flew in the Pacific in WWII. He never fired his guns as far as I know but he dropped bombs. Either way, he flew combat missions.

The second one is an argument someone is having with themselves. If Boyd stole the computer time then run it with a citation. If an accusation was made then countered, then leave it out. It's another detail too many.

The biggest problem is this Talk page. If you look through the subject headings there are things here that are potentially actionable. And that is where I see character assassination. Accusations like that - provable or otherwise - once there, can't be removed. I don't care what Coram said. There's a quote than mentions his family and that's all it says. If you have any understanding of publishing law, you will know why this is important. You might not be able to defame a dead person but there are other people who are potentially affected by this. Flanker235 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Flanker235: Started with the computer time. Using the CSPAN interview (starting around the 32:30 mark), I've adjusted the phrasing and added additional details to emphasize that Boyd ultimately was permitted computer use and was not formally reprimanded. Ancient talk page comments generally aren't a problem; please also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t count on any protection from potential legal problems if I were you. The existence of those two threads, whatever their age, is still a potential problem for you. In any case, their presence does the article no credit. At a personal level, I think it’s outrageous that it was even allowed to remain. And before anyone says it, there would be no freedom of speech defense. It wouldn’t be covered by any tenets of that law. Not from where I’m sitting, anyway. Flanker235 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not participating in this discussion further until the above legal threats are stuck. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no threat. I have no interest in the case. You are being advised by someone who has worked in publishing for a long time. I have no interest in pursuing any legal action and never did. Yet you have now posted a warning on my talk page?!?!? Flanker235 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti - "Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Michel's writing has been affirmed as a reliable source in a couple other discussions (see this discussion, for example) and we will likely follow those precedent."

Have you read Col Michel's work that is cited? Titled "THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM", it is his doctoral dissertation for his Ph.D. at Auburn University. It concerns a group he calls the "iron majors" and their contributions to fighter pilot training after Vietnam. (This is covered in detail in the Revolt of the Majors section above). Three chapters of Michel's thesis contrast the work of the Iron Majors with the Defense Reform Movement led by James Fallows and Pierre Sprey. Michel is clearly biased in favor of the Iron Majors and bitterly opposed to the Defense Reform Movement; his introduction makes his bias clear and the rest of the work confirms it. His animus against Col Boyd appears to stem from the fact that Col Boyd was admired by Sprey and Fallows and often cited by them. However, Boyd was in declining health by 1990 and was not active in the Defense Reform Movement. Col Michel's 479 page dissertation does not concern Col Boyd's military career and contains no real factual information about him, other than a few derogatory comments that are cited above. Michel's dissertation contains no supporting evidence to back up his opinions about Boyd and there is no evidence that he ever served with Boyd, so it is unlikely he has any real knowledge to share about the man.

In particular, this quote attributed to Col Michel is highly suspect: ""In the two months until the armistice on July 27, Boyd flew a short tour (22 missions instead of 100) in F-86 Sabres during the Korean War during which he served as a wingman and never fired his guns or claimed an aerial kill." Col Michel was not a contemporary of Boyd, did not serve during the Korean War, had no personal knowledge of the man, and could not have known such details of his combat record even if he had access to his military personnel file, which would be extremely unlikely. Referring to his combat tour of duty as a "short tour (22 missions instead of 100)" implies that Boyd's service was somehow substandard, when in fact it was terminated by the cessation of hostilities. The same may be said of the second part of the sentence. A junior pilot would routinely be expected to serve as a wingman to a more experienced pilot. The wording "never fired his guns or claimed an aerial kill" also is worded in such a way as to imply cowardice, when in fact a wingman's /job/ is to cover his leader's tail so that his leader can get in the shot. Many pilots flew in combat, did their jobs and yet did not score kills. Col Michel well knows this, yet has clearly worded this quote to be a hatchet job on Col Boyd. As a former USAF officer, I recognize an interservice spat when I see one. Michel's work has no business being cited as a reference on Boyd's page, being clearly not written from a neutral point of view, though it clearly has value discussing the Defense Reform Movement. You refer to it being cited on Pierre's Sprey's page, which I think is acceptable as a contrarian viewpoint there, but Michel has nothing of substance to say about Col Boyd. Drlmd2013 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Also, quite a bit of the above is simply wrong. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite a convincing argument there; you haven't even answered the single question I did ask, which is whether you had actually read Col Michel's thesis. I did. Drlmd2013 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The problematic quote I cite is from page 297 of Col Michel's thesis. When one follows his citation for details of Boyd's military career, one finds that what is cited is "Aces and Aerial Victories: The United States Air Force in Southeast Asia 1965 - 1973". This is a small pamphlet-sized non-academic work from a different era that consists of first-person accounts of Vietnam-era aircrew combat experience, published by the Office of Air Force History. I am readily familiar with works of this type. While I don't have it to hand - it's hard to find in print - it's clear it has nothing to do about Boyd. I'll be waiting to hear from you how I am wrong. Drlmd2013 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

See also my comment under NPOV above about Col Michel's lack of objectivity and the relative thinness of the material he cites in his dissertation about Boyd. What's of greatest interest to me is that what material he does cite is not available to the general public for review, as it is either personal communications or internal Air Force documents. Drlmd2013 (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read it. Your appraisal appears to be incorrect and unfounded. If you can provide clear, reliable sources that directly address the text's claims, please link or reference them here. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would contend that your appraisal is incorrect and unfounded; I would also contend that you haven't established any credibility to your argument other than a simple assertion that my appraisal is wrong. Of the 161 references to John Boyd in Col Michel's dissertation, nearly all of them are ad hominem attacks unsupported by his footnotes, except for two exceptions that I can find.

As far as "clear and reliable" sources that address the text's claims - there are likely no published works that reference Michel's dissertation, because no one bothers to pick apart an obscure air force colonel's doctoral dissertation. Your assertion that Michel's work is a valuable source must be weighed against my appraisal that it isn't on the merits. You've read the text; go back into it and state why you think Michel has valuable insight into Boyd that no one else does. I do not think you can do this.

That being said, there is one item buried away in one of Michel's footnotes that is very valuable to Boyd scholars that no one else seems to have picked up on. It doesn't make Michel's overall views on Boyd that much more credible, but it does speak toward the validity of the "40 Second Boyd" myth. It is buried in footnote 33, chapter 4, p. 91, and refers to personal conversations that Col Michel had with Gen Wilbur Creech, USAF, and Brig Gen Hal Vincent, USMC, about others defeating Boyd in mock dogfights:

"General Wilbur Creech, Boyd’s commander at Nellis, remembers, “We got along fine but I had to go head to head with him and wax his ass in air-to-air combat so he could at least get his swollen head through the door…. I ended up with gun-camera film of my gunsight pipper on his head in the cockpit….” Creech, email,

March 18, 2000, provided to author by Keith Ferris. A strong supporter of Boyd, Marine

fighter pilot Brigadier General Hal Vincent, also said Boyd exaggerated, noting “two good pilots

in the same plane would end up neutral…. there were others who could beat [Boyd] in a high

speed fight.” Hal Vincent e-mail 27 March 2000, provided to author by Keith Ferris."

There's a second item that appears to be reliably cited, which is CDR McKeown's derogatory opinion of Col Boyd's energy maneuverability briefing to his Top Gun staff. He references Wilcox's /Scream of Eagles/ book, which is well known and reliable. So we can say from Col Michel's dissertation that CDR McKeown (and possibly, maybe probably others on his Top Gun staff) didn't like his EM briefing, that Gen Creech thought that Boyd had an overinflated view of his air combat skills and defeated him in a mock dogfight, and Brig Gen Vincent confirmed that others could do so as well. That's all that I can find in this 470+ page opus that we can reliably take away about Boyd.

When perusing the majority of the other 150+ references to Boyd in Michel's dissertation, I find that they are either not footnoted, that their footnotes refer back to USAF oral history interviews that are not available to other scholars, or that they are simply marked "private communication".

I'm working to obtain a copy of the Futrell book that Col Michel cites as a source for the problematic paragraph I mentioned before. Its table of contents, introduction and index are available on line and nowhere do they mention Boyd. I think Col Michel /meant/ to cite another Futrell book, Robert Futrell, Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 1989). There are several other references to that book in the dissertation. I am beginning to believe that Col Michel simply made an error in this footnote and we may never know what his true source is for this paragraph.

Col Michel's dissertation is fascinating and useful about many subjects about USAF history. Sadly, he is at his weakest when he writes about Boyd. The Creech and Vincent anecdotes should be cited as they relate to the "40 Second Boyd" myth, and the McKeown criticism of Boyd could be directly cited out of /Scream of Eagles/ if desired, but the remainder of Michel's work has no business being cited on Boyd's page.

Prove me wrong. Drlmd2013 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Prove me wrong. Sure! You asked me to go back into it and state why you think Michel has valuable insight into Boyd that no one else does. But you already did that by pointing out that the work includes references to USAF oral history interviews that are not available to other scholars, or that they are simply marked "private communication". Important to add that you're also mischaracterizing these references: the oral histories are likely accessible to anyone willing to ante up the necessary FOIA paperwork (and money) and some of the referenced correspondences are described in significant detail as to date, format, and persons involved. In short, you appear upset that the author of this source came to a different conclusion regarding Boyd than you would like. Unfortunately, that alone is simply not enough to discount a source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You're correct that my dislike of Michel's opinions about Boyd isn't enough to impeach their credibility in and of themselves; however, it is Michel's consistently partisan tone and lack of supporting evidence in his writing /with respect to Boyd/ that does that. It's important to note that his dissertation is not about Boyd; it's about the iron majors, the development of fighter aircraft, and secondarily about the limitations of the Defense Reform Movement. Michel didn't set out to write about Boyd and didn't have a great deal of information about him when writing his dissertation; this is clear upon careful reading. On the other hand, when discussing the main topics of his dissertation, Michel cites hundreds of works, many of which I have read, and cites them for the most part correctly and without bias.

I note that others on this page have also questioned the objectivity of Michel's opinions with respect to Boyd. You seem to be the only one to claim that this work is a reliable source of information /about John Boyd/. I think a better job can be done of presenting both positive and negative views of the man. The purpose of this page is to achieve consensus before proposing edits to the page. Do you mind if I propose some? Drlmd2013 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drlmd2013: Ok, to clarify, you believe Michel gets the facts right regarding both Boyd and most everything he's written about? I fail to see why you're typing out all this as that seems to indicate that you simply disagree with the appraisal of Boyd by a reliable source. That's fine, but doesn't indicate any reason to alter the text of the article. Feel welcome to bring another reliable source forward that directly addresses Michel's claims and suggest specific changes, but otherwise I think you've talked yourself out of whatever case you were trying to make. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Touche! All right, I think I'm going to have to break it down bit by bit. Michel's reliable when he talks about the subject of his dissertation, and - despite his biases - he has snuck into his footnotes two gems of important facts that should be /added/ to the page under the topic of 40 Second Boyd.

There are three footnotes credited to Michel on the current page - 4, 5 and 11. 5 is neutral and uncontroversial. 11 refers to Blue Bird/Red Bird and is backstopped with another footnote to Coram's hagiographic biography. On balance there seems no bias here. That leaves 4, which is currently tagged as having its neutrality disputed. Current wording is thus:

"In the two months until the armistice on July 27, Boyd flew a short tour (22 missions instead of 100) in F-86 Sabres during the Korean War during which he served as a wingman and never fired his guns or claimed an aerial kill.[neutrality is disputed]"

A little digging turned up this online article by an Air Command and Staff College faculty member:

https://balloonstodrones.com/2018/08/22/a-discourse-on-john-boyd-a-brief-summary-of-the-us-air-forces-most-controversial-pilot-and-thinker/comment-page-1/

in which its author, Dr Michael Hankins, states:

"First, we must deal with the notion of Boyd as – according to Hammond – ‘a premier fighter pilot.’ Some have referred to Boyd as the greatest fighter pilot who ever lived, and many press outlets mistakenly refer to him as an ace. Although Boyd did fly F-86 Sabres during a brief tour in the Korean War, he does not have a single air-to-air kill to his credit. He never fired his gun in a combat situation. This is not necessarily an indictment of his skills. The reason is that in those years, the USAF tended to fly in formations in which only the lead element was cleared to fire, while the wingmen provided protection. Boyd only ever flew in a wingman position, and never got in an opportunity to fire at enemy MiG-15s."

I would like to leave the #5 and #11 footnotes referencing the Michel dissertation and change the sentence which begins with 'In the two months ...' to read:

"In the two months until the armistice on July 27, Boyd flew 22 missions, in which he did not fire his guns or score a kill. [4]" and then change footnote 4 to reference the Hankins article.

My rationale for this is that the revised sentence is tighter, it removes the "short tour" and "22 rather than 100" wording, both of which have perjorative connotations. Boyd's tour ended because the war ended. It retains the important facts that he didn't fire shots in anger or score a kill - which is important when considering his postwar reputation - yet doesn't state the facts in such a way as to imply that this was somehow his fault. A reader following the footnote will be pointed to the Hankins article, which contains the same facts, but a more neutral-toned discussion of Boyd's short Korean War career. The Hankins article covers both positive and negative views of Boyd, including a scathing comment about him by ex-USAF Chief of Staff Gen Merrill McPeak in an interview by Carl Prine in the San Diego Union Tribune.

I would also like to revise the "40 Second Boyd" sentence immediately after footnote 5 to include Col Michel's communications from Gen Wilbur Creech USAF and Brig Gen Hal Vincent USMC. They are laid out in footnote 33 on p. 91 and have not been reported in any other work on Boyd that I have read. They are very important in debunking the legend that Boyd never lost a dogfight, especially as Creech later rose to be Chief of Staff:

"General Wilbur Creech, Boyd’s [sic] commander at Nellis, remembers, “We got along fine but I had to go head to head with him and

wax his ass in air-to-air combat so he could at least get his swollen head through the door…. I ended up with gun-camera film of my gunsight pipper on his head in the cockpit….” Creech, email, March 18, 2000, provided to author by Keith Ferris

A strong supporter of Boyd, Marine fighter pilot Brigadier General Hal Vincent, also said Boyd exaggerated, noting “two good pilots

in the same plane would end up neutral…. there were others who could beat [Boyd] in a high speed fight.” Hal Vincent e-mail 27 March 2000, provided to author by Keith Ferris."

The present wording of the sentence immediately after footnote 5 reads:

"He was dubbed "Forty Second Boyd" for his standing bet as an instructor pilot that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds."

I would like to revise this to read:

"He carried the nickname "Forty Second Boyd" for his standing bet as an instructor pilot that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds. Though he claimed never to have lost a bet, his former commander and later USAF Chief of Staff General Wilbur Creech stated that he had done it, as well as others.[insert footnote to Michel]"

This deletes one footnote referring to Michel's work, leaves two, and adds one based on previously unnoticed but important information buried in his footnotes. I think I'm being fair to him here. Please let me know what you think. Drlmd2013 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drlmd2013: Yeah, swapping the passage regarding Boyd's combat experience to the phrasing you suggest and using the Hankin source over Michel is perfectly fine. I would encourage brevity in talk page comments going forward and suggest phrasing recommended changes in a clear "change X to Y" format in the first post. If you want to make the change, go ahead–if there's an issue in formatting or anything, I'll take care of it. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do as you say and keep your kind advice in mind, Apologies. Is it also permissible to add the reference to Gen Creech to the line about 40 Second Boyd and cite Michel? 74.130.78.183 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)