Jump to content

Talk:The Hump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requesting consensus discussion on addition of images

[edit]
The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion is welcome here.Arilang1234 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV complaint re: "nearly suicidal"

[edit]

The main article currently contains the following sentence:

"Flying over the Hump proved to be a nearly suicidal endeavour on the part of Allied flight crews."

Well, I guess it might be, or might have been, but the word I am having problems with is nearly - Should this word be struck out? If flying over the hump were actually suicidal, then the number of suicides (or fatalities, in other words) could be listed. I have no doubt that flying over a series of ravines could be difficult. Especially with violent breezes coursing up and down the gorges (much worse at some times of the year than others, I'll bet), but in any case the passage could be improved with an eye to accuracy, and less emphasis on the drama involved. 216.99.198.102 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

This article has come a long way since I last contributed to it. However it is badly in need of citations for each and every paragraph. Books already cited also need to have page numbers added to them and periodicals and web pages need dates. Also web pages are a problem because they probably do not meet WP:SOURCES requirements.-- PBS (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up all that, used Harvard notation templates for all books, eliminated all of the private web sites as primary documentation or identified them as such, and reorganized the rest. There were a lot of factual errors, particularly in who commanded what when, some of that obviously due to the source it was obtained from, and I carefully corrected that (and my own errors along the way) and cross-checked for accuracy between sources not necessarily regurgitating content from earlier sources. Edited and tweaked what previously existed in this article (but kept as much of it as possible) and fleshed out the history to what I hope is seen as meaningful cause-effect-resolution for the many phases of the airlift.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


POV complaint

[edit]

This article describes The Hump from a US military perspective. Cleaning all blemishes and realities of the operation and negating CNAC's true role in the airlift.

The Hump was originally a CNAC operation to carry passengers in or out of China in case Japanese forces made it harder to do so. CNAC first flew the Hump in 1940 in an exploratory flight, then in 1941 they had the first scheduled passenger flight.

All efforts to make the Hump a reality came from CNAC directors and TV Soong in Washington. While the US military kept negating the feasibility of such endeavor.

Data in article is given in a way that covers all the problems and mistakes that the military suffered for much of the airlift (until they got their act together).

For example:

In June 1943, ATC carried 2,219 tons with 146 aircraft assigned, including nearly 100 C-46s and several four-engine C-87s (transport version of the B-24 Liberator). CNAC operated 20 aircraft, all DC-3s, and moved 734.7 tons. In other words, ATC, flying larger aircraft, transported 15 tons per plane to CNAC's 37 tons

Quoting Stilwell: "The over-promoted air corps is sunk when it comes to administration and management... Just a bunch of aerial chauffeurs .... Alexander has 3,000 men and 750 pilots and still they can't get going. The C-46 is full of bugs, carburetor ices up. We have lost six over the Hump and the boys' morale is lower and lower …. June, about 3,400 tons. July, 4,500 tons. August …?? They were to hit 7,000 in July and 10,000 in September. The Air Transport Command record to date is pretty sad. The CNAC has made them look like a bunch of amateurs."

Imho, I find it hard to write an objective article about the Hump from the perspective of the US military unless they give enough recognition to CNAC and allow the article to provide truthful facts about military failures in the first years of the airlift. Those truthful facts could help everyone appreciate more the true sacrifice those US military pilots had to endure in the beginning.

Not sure how to proceed unless the tittle of the article just be changed to something else like US military operations over the Hump WW2... Elmer Bear (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have source material for CNAC, then describe their contributions. The only reason it is not in now in greater detail is a lack of sources, credible or otherwise. As for the other assertion, your charge that the article "covers (up) all the problems and mistakes" and (does not) "provide truthful facts about military failures" is false. I completely support recognizing CNAC's contribution, but I categorically reject the accusation that the article whitewashes the numerous failures between April 1942 and March 1945. One entire section summarizes aircraft failures. The relief from command of the first four airlift commanders (10AF, Alexander, Hoag, and Hardin) for their failures is detailed. Problems in administration and command, efficiency, tonnage failures, personnel, equipment, and support logistics are detailed throughout the history of the operations, including those made during Tunner's command (when "they got their act together"). btw, quotes like Stillwell's, app. made in August 1943, would be valuable if sourced. However Stillwell had an axe to grind when it came to US operations and those of the Chinese, and in particular was at odds with the AAF because of his friction with Channault, and so he is hardly an unbiased source.
Assertions such as those made above regarding June 1943 tonnages must be documented. They are at odds with official records and histories. For example, I have seen no source indicating that ICW-ATC had more than 30 C-46s in June 1943 (and as you have pointed out, being an untried aircraft, all had bugs). Moreover, a lack of all-weather basing was the major problem through much of 1943, a fact covered and sourced in the article. None of us was there--credible sources (i.e. those that are themselves credibly sourced) are paramount. To avoid POV, an article has to be approached without an agenda.Given the size of the article now, perhaps a re-naming of the article is in order, with a sister article for CNAC. --Reedmalloy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurized

[edit]

I suppose it goes without saying that only pressurized aircraft were able to make the trip? (Could a knowledgeable editor who knows the facts mention this as an operational constraint in the article?) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. Oxygen masks were used as needed, but they were generally "only" flying at about 18,000 feet or so.--172.191.112.214 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such thing as a pressurized C-46, C-47, C-54, C-87 or C=109. (Don't be fooled by the fact that the original C-46, the Curtiss-Wright CW-20 airliner, was intended to be pressurized. It never in fact was.)173.62.11.254 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American businessman looks for the wreckage every year

[edit]

94.59.84.133 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I remember reading in the news ( Times of India?)about an American businessman, who comes to India every year for a while and trekks the Himalyan foothills and meets the tribals to locate the wreckage of aircraft and bodies of the crew mwmbers, and he has been successfull i locating many of these.[reply]

Mahesh Butani Abu Dhabi

--94.59.84.133 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dayne Kline "quote"

[edit]

The block quote edit, deleted by me and now reverted, asserts that the quote is a point of view of a crewman, Dayne Kline. It probably reflects his views, but the passage quoted is clearly a characterization by the page author, David Kline, likely a relative, and not the words of Dayne Kline as purported. For now I will accept the "better source needed" flag attached as sufficient, but the descriptions by others who were there, such as Tunner and Gann, already make the point being made, and I agree with PBS that the entire quote should be deleted if it cannot be better sourced, as we both described in the edit summaries for all the edits made in October.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hump hostel in Kunming

[edit]

I don't want to insert a blatant ad and there's no section for references, popular culture or memorials...so is this worth inserting? They pretty big on informing backpackers about the history of the flights and have walls of stories and photos. The fact that I like the place is why I sort of don't want to insert them since I'm pretty non-neutral about it.

p.s. www.thehumphostel.com/Flyingthehump/flyingtigere.html 220.233.39.18 (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hump. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Hump. 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, 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) 08:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hump&oldid=1199872537"