Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wartime requirements

Copy/edit from the article: "The lessons of combat led to further developments and design changes such as commerce straffers introducing strafing capability (see Far East and Pacific); with gunships, cannon armed attack versions (see Gunships) and radar search aircraft variants utilizing search radar. Other missions adaptions requirements led to variants such as crew trainers and recconessence reconnaissance aircraft and brought about other mission-specific variants specific role models. Lastly, the AAF and NAA combined requirements and designed solutions that could be produced on the assembly lines without post- production delays. The factory strafer nose was one such development produced in alternating blocks at the factory late in the war (See image of B-25J2 above).

This is a section that could conceivably be added to the lede, but on its own, makes no sense sequentially in a history of the type, and has multiple errors. The section is moved here for comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed previously, that is exactly why it was introduced. it was preparatory to the relocation of the three D&D topics from USSAF USERS (military operators) section to D&D. if you have question on a talk topic it is advisable to discuss them when posted. In consensus building, silence is normally interpreted as acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This section has been identified as problematic by a number of editors. The persistent and continual reverting to this original submission, complete with errors (see changes made directly to the text) is the issue. Once Bold-Revert-Discuss is invoked, the "Discuss" needs to take place. Editing that is disruptive by restoring information or content another user has expressed issues with, as was done at this article is a serious concern. With the overarching "personal" voice evident, this section requires a complete rewrite,if it is to be kept at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

bill , the verbose edits in bold are ok with me except the deletetion of post in post-production. that changes the meaning to the exact opposite. the introduction into production eliminated post production modification that had been being performed to get to the configuration. please not the abusive mis-characterizations are counterproductive. I had introduced the topic in talk. it is you who is continually making undiscussed deletions. own up to that and then constructive consensus can be built. allusions to mythical other edits who have not commented here nor at the previously introduced topic detracts further from your credibility as an honest broker. so get onboard with a cooperative tone, please.

because F (photo) and AT ( advanced trainer) are different TYPES than B (bomber) and because you have edited in variants repetitively, I suggest both a more accurate and appropriate wording would be: Other mission roles lead to new types... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The usual term used for unique versions of aircraft is "variants" preferred over types, mission roles, or the like. Note, there is a warning already in place about incivil comments; one more instance would result in being blocked. Make comments about the work, not the person. As to the section, unless there is consensus for its inclusion, it has already been identified as unnecessary to the article. Checking back as to the edit record will indicate who initiated this discussion and when. The edit comments on revisions to the article main space also are recorded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No sir. that is your opinion. no refererence given, and if it were, it would be incorrectly applied here. ref: Fahey, U.S. Army Aircraft 1926 - 1946 ( previously cited).

It is not unneccessary. it is, as explained several times, a preliminary to moving three design & development topics out of the USAAF OPERATORS ( users, mor properly for military organizations per wiki). so if yu want to be productive reinsert the "lede" and relocate the three D&D. I know the flight characteristic were functions of the design and the noise levels, of the exhaust system/ cowl developments. the characteristics were not unique to USAAF operations and are improperly placed in the article. the G, H & J were developments and the H and J series were not exclusive to the AAF.

Your edits lack parallel construction moving from terms of cabilities to equipment . the original was all in terms of the aircraft.

you my man started and continue the uncivil behavior. I have shown great restraint and II will rrepeat, thhis topic was the subject of three different talk topics. one before an edit. there were no objects. the other two after you, alone, and without following protocol, twice deleted the edit. NO ONE OBJECTED. your actions are totally arbitrary. I remind you, locking me out is no loss to me. It is however counterproductive to the good of the article. You started this behavior post unfounded , opinionated remarks on three article talk and on several editors' talk pages. did you think they went unnoticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B007:1A52:BB64:A4D7:DC35:303D (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously an issue of self-awareness involved. Check with the edit summaries where another editor removed the section entirely, I had placed it into an "invisible note" and introduced the topic on the talk page for comment but there is no consensus for its retention, rather a series of ill-founded and intemperate comments, even after being cautioned. I am done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What I ve ceck are talk topic above. that is the procedure. Again you throw around terms like ill-founded and intempered as if these were anymore than opinion. it is not I who is off topic sir. I will remind you again that you "poison the well" merely because my edits at the B-17 didn t fit your perceptions. you didn t ask for citations, you aggressively made unilateral deletions. I again bring to everyone,s attentions that the reason for the introductory parargraph is discussed three times above. if someone deleted it without commenting here, the acted outside the protocols. your masking was also in violation. and this edit is dicussion is taking place in the absence of response to my talk topic.

Back to the issue, the USAAF SECTION contains design and development discussion that require moving I/a/w the article outline. no one has objected to that recommendation yet the topics remain misplaced. this introduction as explained before it was entered into the article was to serve the purpose of introducing the topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.136.153 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

citations provided

There are comment inserted in the article for infomation that has already appeared in talk topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To the IP editor

Comments such as this where you compared other editors to child molesters are entirely unacceptable, and rude and confrontational comments such as this, this and this aren't much better. You have been asked repeatedly by other editors to provide sources for the material you want to add and stop the personal abuse, and I would like to reiterate this. Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars for the basic requirements Wikipedia asks contributors to follow - none of them are terribly demanding - all that's requested is that you treat people here the same way as you would treat colleagues or acquaintances. If your conduct continues past this point your accounts will be blocked and you will be locked out of the articles you wish to edit. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I made no accusation nor comparison to child molestion. the inference was not there and a retraction of your suggestion is in order. the discussion was stalking and the anology was between having personal information from a directory and how the access to information is separate from action. you keep saying the information is public. yes but the use for cyberstalking does not arise from the information. it arises from the action of harassing behavior by your editors following me accross several article and talk page to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B117:1F1:B66A:6DFC:5761:AEF3 (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My further association with the article is unnecessarily. there remain outline and organizational issue of some scope and magnitude created by by misalignments in Operations were sections largely concern Design & Development. however my further involment won t cure that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B117:1F1:B66A:6DFC:5761:AEF3 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Flight Characteristics

The section of Flight Characteristics lodged in Military Operators between the USAAF and the RAF seems misplaced in my opinion. Is there consensus on the current location? Because the section goes on to provide anecdote on particular some B-25, it is difficult to recommend a placement or what level of detail belongs in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Development of the Gunships (G&H) & J series.

these strike me as design & development topics. is there consensus on the current location or shound these be moved to design & Development? (Note the AAF was not the exclusive user.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

SAIPAN, Tinian, Guam

I did not introduce this topic but I can offer one citation now. There are many. pg 235 et seq , One Damned Island After Another , Saga of the Seventh, Howard, C & Whitley, J.; Zenger Pub. Co. Wash., DC 1979 reprint. ISBN 0-89201-049- 5 ( 1946, U of NC Press, Chapel Hill, NC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B121:F8D9:28E9:7CD1:8E76:919E (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hayes mods, 1952

Avery, (previously cited), pages 138 & 139 discusses the Hayes mods and the exhaust collectors specifically in listing at lower case I ,semi collector ring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B117:1F1:B66A:6DFC:5761:AEF3 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Series Development citation

have been provided in detail several times at this talk page under different topic. therefore this recap will be brief and use short titles: Craven and Cate , vol II, III, IV, V, & VI,; Avery, Magnificent Medium, various pages, esp'ly G coverage on date of Design initiation; also on C1/D1; AAF STUDY 62 ( on line); Hickey; Warpath... others in previous discussion. reminder: citation needed tag instructions require only that citations be provided at the talk page, not at the article. anyone can added the reference notes.

I trust this fulfilled the citation request and it will now be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

l, please reread the scope and intent of the topic and also demonstrate you read the referencences. your response is of a non-specific and general nature not addressing the topic and scope of this discussion. <small class="aut, please reread the scope and intent of the topic and also demonstrate you read the referencences. your response is of a non-specific and general nature not addressing the topic and scope of this discussion. <small class="aut=Two citation requests==

The first requested a citation for the B-25J as a strafer. This covered in the article and is therefore circular or self-fulfilling. However the cleanest answer was the picture of the conversion in the article and reference to it was inserted. (As suggested previously, the picture could be placed lower in the article with better effect.)

The second request was for the G series with the 8 gun nose. Again there is an abundance of photographic evidence on the web. Rust, K; The Seventh Air Force Story, contains pictures of a few from the 820th BS which he mistakes as J but which clearly have the naviagator's alternate position aft the cockpit. ( Have full profile pictures and mission records) If necessary and acceptable I can provide USAF microfilm reel numbers from the history of the Hawaiian Air Depot or the date of letter from the Group CO to the depot requesting the work and identifying the candidates by a/c serial numbers. There is also a wonderful profile picture similar to the J2 photo on the web from about 7 years ago. I might be able to find the url. However if the Rust citation is sufficent, I will consider the request satisfied.

Using a picture as a source generally isn't acceptable, especially if it requires interpretation or synthesis to get to the (claimed) fact of the matter. (Eg there is an image of a plane with serial ABC123 that has a twin tail, a separate listing identifies ABC123 as a 1987 model therefore the image is used as a source that the 1987 model has a twin tail.) Doesn't work like that, a Reliable Source has to make the connection.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Avery, pg 62 (talk topic above on development. ibid pg 107 et seq Ibid pg. 114 moreover the J2 could and was fitted to B-25C series and NA-96. I have the tech documents however, see Hickey, Warpath for C-1 (sic) Dirty Dora II.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

XB-21

. The North American XB-21(NA-39) of 1936 contributed to the design and development of the NA-40. The history of the failure on XB-21 can be read by following the link and is extraneous to the B-25 story. recommend two sentences be collapsed as show above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

War Theaters - US ARMED FORCES

ref. Maurer Maurer (...Units, or ...Squadrons)

The (only) two major theaters in WWII for the Americans were: EAME , Europe, Africa, Middle East; and The Asian-Pacific.

The EAME consisted of the ETO, MTO & Northern Atlantic for command and control purposes.

The Asian- Pacific is more complex due to political accommodations. The asian China, Burma, India (CBI) theater was a politically and militarily divided with the British dominating its Southeast Asia Command, and the Chinese, its homeland.

The Americans divided the Pacific into the Army commanded Southwest Pacific Area (SWPA), and the Navy controlled Pacific areas of the CPA, NPA, South Pacific. Nimitz delegated authority in SOPAC and the NPA. The POA was a command and control convention that never included the SWPA regardless of casual usage to the contray.

All these areas had campaigns defined by boundires in time and geography. The Western Pacific, for an example, was a campaign.

Please stay to historical usage in encyclopedic editing. Maurer can be consulted on-line. Note this is US usage as it pertains to this article on primarily a US AIRCRAFT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The South-East Asian theatre of World War II and Pacific War Theater, sometimes called the Asia-Pacific War Theater are the terms generally in use by military historians. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

bill, why do you not consult the referencences before posting unoffical usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:5F8A:BCEB:9125:6444:12CA (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he has, and has decided that some of the sources that endorse other terminology have some merit as well? Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The scope here was defined as pertaining to US FORCES. SEA was a commonwealth term. The point of the topic was for guidance in discussion of US units and operations. I trust this clarification is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Tidy

I have had a suggle round of the talk page to put into more conventional chronological order, apologise if I made any mistakes trying to make sense of it all, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

B-25 nose/rocket mod citation

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

BYWATER, M; B-25s Target Kyushu; B-25 Press; Riverside, CA; 1994; ISBN O-9639575-0-3 Ref page 162. subject as above, right galley, 2 nd full para. another citation to fulfill citation needed request, which may now be deleted. Note: in three of the four group squadrons the complement consisted of J, G, & D series. The fourth was the all-J series glide torpedo squadron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B021:C8A4:7D58:C5AD:61AE:CDD5 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

NA-40

Close

PreviewingTalk:North American B-25 Mitchell

SaveSummary:By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL license.

NA40

There is too much coverage (3 paragraphs) on the NA 40. Only to points are salient: it lead to the NA-40B; and it introduced the R-2600.

NA-40B

The coverage is fragmented and needs to be consolidate; then reduced to the essence. It gave NAA design experience in twin engined bombers; introduced the tricycle gear; and influenced the compact cross section and canopy arrangement. A picture is appropriate to show these points. The remained is the story for this plane but not the B-25. Neither it or its predecessor are B-25 variants, being attack designs, and do not belong in the variants section.=NA40== There is too much coverage (3 paragraphs) on the NA 40. Only to points are salient: it lead to the NA-40B; and it introduced the R-2600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:FE65:591C:60B8:8DF5:9A4 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The NA-40 and NA-40B are the same airframe. The 40/40B gives context leading to the NA-62 design but there is no NA-62 built as ordered off the drawing board. AS we currently do not have a NA-40 article, leaving coverage of it here is no detriment. Yes the development section needs rewriting, but that's a thing that happens. WP Not Finished and all that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See Avery pages 20 -23 for the extent of the design changes. thanks for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:FE65:591C:60B8:8DF5:9A4 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Doolittle- Halsey Raid

Close discussion by user evading blocks

This was significant event in the American war effort and in the history of the Mitchell. However the coverage in the B-25 article would better serve the both the article as a whole and the event if the two, long parargraphs were redesigned as one shorter paragraph with a hypertext link to an article on the raid. Any details desired can be carried over by incorporation at the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

IP 2600

Just to note that IP 2600 has been blocked from editing and they are not allowed to contribute, as such any contributions can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents

I made a tenuous edit to the section, adding a bit about a 1947 crash.

While I haven't found much information that has not been exaggerated or fabricated by ufologists, the crash seems to have really happened. That is if we can take the newspaper scans floating online at face value, which I'm not sure about, considering they are mostly found in conspiracy and UFO sites.

Any feedback from more experienced editors would be appreciated.--Pathanb

I readded the section about the Pittsburgh crash, it is significant to the population of the city and there has been many dredging projects with the Army Corps of Engineers to find the plane. --Feickus —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thousands of B-25s have crashed in accidents and other than the Empire State accident none of those added appear to be of any note to the aircraft. Being notable in Pittsburgh is not really relevant to the B-25. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make WP:AIRCRASH, which is the inclusion criteria for crashes in aircraft type articles, unless there is more information showing that it is significant for reasons beyond rumoured cargo on board. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That was a much better argument to remove than WP:WEIGHT. If that had been used in the original edit or my portion, I would not have reverted back. - Feickus (talk)Feickus (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

B-25H section

The text saying "the heavy M4 cannon mm" is missing a "75" before the "mm". (The article seems to be locked, but does not show it.) 184.209.1.89 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BilCat! 72.58.238.146 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Navy/Marines Variants section, the PBJ-1J seems to have been inserted into the middle of the -1H paragraph. Also, 'standar' needs another 'd', and should the "Tiny Tim" sentence be part of the preceding paragraph? 184.209.3.65 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd placement?

Anybody else find it odd that the Doolittle raid isn't in the Operational history#Asia-Pacific subsection? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because someone(s) strayed from the recommended aircraft article section format as per WP:AIR/SG, and created "Military operators" as a section covering most military operations, where the raid is covered. The issue you raise is one reason we don't recommend editors make up their own headings and sections, but try to follow a standard format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs)

AAF?

The acronym AAF comes up quote a few times. Is this the same as USAAF? Could this be made more consistent throughout the article? Alternatively, could AAF be spelled out the used... preferably with a Wikipeda link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.196.123 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point,  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 9, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Assembly of the North American B-25 Mitchell in Kansas City, Kansas, in 1942. This twin-engine medium bomber was manufactured by North American Aviation and named in honor of Major General William Mitchell, a pioneer of U.S. military aviation. Used by many Allied air forces, the B-25 served in every theater of World War II. Many remained in service in the decades after the war. Nearly 10,000 Mitchells rolled from NAA factories, including limited models for the U.S. Marine Corps and Army Air Forces.Photograph: Alfred T. Palmer; restoration: Adam Cuerden

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North American B-25 Mitchell. 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/20120310001635/http://i-ota.net/BarbieIII/ to http://i-ota.net/BarbieIII/

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) 11:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Flight characteristics" consider edit

In flight characteristics it says "The pilot had to remember to maintain engine-out directional control at low speeds after takeoff with rudder; if this maneuver was attempted with ailerons, the aircraft could snap out of control."

While true of the B-25, it is also true of virtually all multiengine aircraft that have the engines mounted on the wings, so it is not a flight characteristic peculiar to the B-25.

More fair to the gentle handling characteristics of the Mitchell would be to say, "Above 145mph, the minimum safe single engine speed, directional control is easily maintained with the rudder." T.O. 1B-25(T)J-1, Page 3-1

Also important to the flight characteristics of any aircraft is its stalling behavior. Page 6-1 of the T.O. 1B-25(T)J-1 states "Stalls are not vicious or violent. Both the buffeting preceding the stall and the stall itself are relatively gentle."

Avedoc (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Turret removal as noted in "US Navy and USMC" section under "Operational history"

Original remarks herein suggest the removal of the top turret was a not-unusual field modification by Pacific units late in the war, but no published substantiation of this is provided. Turret removal was a post-war modification done when increased passenger capacity was desired, but I have never seen any proof of such modification in any combat theater as described by the original writer. Documentation needs to be provided or the remarks should be removed so that the integrity of actual wartime PBJ configurations used is maintained; a wartime photograph of a turret-less PBJ Mitchell would be ideal.2600:100C:B22D:8E08:2952:11BE:B0E0:8BDD (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It is unsourced, as is most of that section, so it can all just be removed as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a mention of the Psychedelic Monster

The Psychedelic Monster was a B25 painted in lurid colours, used as a camera platform for 1961 film Battle Of Britain starring pretty much everybody. AFAIK it still exists and is being restored to flyable condition in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2788:1008:2c3:e2cb:4eff:fe88:1a2d (talk • contribs)

Need a reference; got one? - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

With a ref, it would go in List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)