Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell

Error

I just noticed the spec

3,200 lb (1,800 kg) bombs

Clearly an error, as 3200 lb is more like 1500 kg. But I have no idea which number is right, so I'll leave that to the experts...

It's 4,000 lb (1,815 kg). Thanks for catching that one! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC}

Empire State Building

Currently the article contains no mention of the 1945 crash. I figure it's worth a mention in here, because that and the doolittle raid are probably the two events that place the B-25 in the public eye. Night Gyr 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but, on September 11, 2001,after the first plane crashed into the first tower of the World Trade Center, people were referring to the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, (in bad weather). Until the second plane slammed into the second tower of the World Trade Center. Then they stopped talking about the B-25 accident. Also, many people before 9-11-01,asked the question; what would happen if a plane hit the World Trade Center? The builders would respond that when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building, the structure was not damaged too badly, therefore, if a plane hit the World Trade Center, the building(s) would survive. They failed to take into account the differences between a plane built in the 1940's and a plane built around 2001. 204.80.61.10 18:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Actually, the World Trade Center was designed to handle a fully loaded 707 hitting it (the WTC was directly in the flight path of three major airports) what they did not take into consideration was fully loaded with fuel hitting at take-off speed hitting the building. The structures of both building are different - Empire State is girder construction while WTC was platform construction (which doe not do too well under both stress & intense fireDavegnz (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifications that won the war

Can someone have a look at Rattlesnake Island, Queensland and Mount Louisa and if there is any useful information, update this article.

thanks

Please explain.

"Museum" display

There is a B-25 bomber ("Skunkie") at Owens Field in Columbia that is, I believe, visible to the public. I've seen it on my own (actually been up to it, around it) once, in addition to a number of old jeeps. However, I went by recently and the gate was locked. With permission from the airfield, I believe one may see the plane. It is visible partially in the old hangar (http://www.curtisswrighthangar.com/start.html) over the doors. If you think this can count as being added to the list, please let me know. Zchris87v 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding "Catch-22" The aircraft in "Catch-22" were B-24 Liberators, not B-25 Mitchells. And I thought it was a B-24 which struck the Empire State Building, not a B-25.

the crash was also a B-25, not a Lib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you goto Catch-22 for the entire B-25 listing done in December 2007Davegnz (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people confuse the B-24 and B-25 because of their tails. But the B-24 was a much larger aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven Den Beste (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Catch 22 used B-24s? Perhaps the viewer was watching in stereo. Buk 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The survivors page does not list the B-25J on display at the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo, MI. It is listed on the Air Zoo's Wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Zoo, which does not state that it is a replica.

I corrected that one without even seeing your note. Also, please sign your talk-page comments with four tildes; it lets us see not just who made the comment, but date-stamps it, too. Rdfox 76 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation on armament mods

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

strafer of all series are cover in Avery chpt 12 pg 107 et seq all as previouly supplied The Hawaiian mods for 41 bg are specifically addressed on 108 (upper right) however the whole of the page and chapter applies. note also C1/D1 (pg109 and elsewhere). See end 109/110 and 8 gun nose retrofitting Again, see also Rust, Seventh Air Force Story. citation request filled. None remain on edits to this IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Flaming Mamie

The section on the de-icing tests is way out of line with the rest of the article. It really needs paring or a separate page, IMHO. Buk 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Done -Signaleer 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Survivors"

The Collings Foundation owns and operates a B-25J (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tx_b-25jmitchell.htm) which should be added to the list. It is an operational aircraft that flies to many cities in the United States each year as part of their "Wings of Freedom" tour. I was able to view this fine aircraft up close at Moffett National Airfield a couple of days ago.User:Cephas2000 07:22, 19-May-2007 (UTC)

At a recent Air show at Bellville, Willow Run Airport, MI they had 15 B-25s flying, at list of them can be found at http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/airshow/aircraft.htm

bunch of posting - B-25 Survivors has been moved - lots and lots of links enjoyDavegnz (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the survivor list

Since there are so many B25's listed as surviving in the article, should they be spun off to their own Surviving B-25 Mitchells? Then we could expand on the individual planes, and the article would be a little less cluttered. --TLein 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done that - enjoyDavegnz (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture - Novel reference

Anyone else ever read Whip by Martin Caidin and think it'd warrant some coverage here? The machinegun-heavy Mitchells feature extensively in that novel. 'Course, the novel would merit an article of its own as well. --TLein 06:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, that gunpod

Just a little one, the "late model" gunpod was actually the first design of gunpod used on the B-25; it was based on a design manufactured in Brisbane, Australia for "Pappy" Gunn's B-25 gunship conversions. The later design of gunpod used two separate, elongated-oval shaped blisters...Minorhistorian (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairfax mod center KC had an interim design which was hinged rather than removed but otherwise similar to the SWPA style. See Avery for images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Caption updated. Thanks for finding the mistake! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise a good article. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Survivors

New article on B-25 Survivors now open - moved info from old section (as needed) to new

Range

I understand the aircraft had a superior range, enabling its role in the Doolittle raid. Could anyone explain which design features contributed to this? Any key technologies?--Cancun771 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Superior is a comparative, superior range to what? The range required for the Doolittle raid required removing almost all nonessential hardware and systems to reduce overall aircraft weight. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradict

The casualty figures given in this article and those in the Doolittle Raid article don't agree. I've added the tag until somebody with better sources than I can give a definite answer. -- 142.166.3.82 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Navy Naval History Center writes: " The other fifteen planes, with their seventy-five men, flew on toward China, where darkness forced four to crash-land or ditch offshore. With fuel running out after some fifteen hours of flying, eleven crews took to their parachutes. Three men were killed at this time. Local residents saved most of the others and heroically spirited them through Japanese-held territory to safety. The vengeful enemy retaliated with a vicious ground offensive, killing tens of thousands of Chinese over the following months. The Japanese also were able to capture eight men from two planes' crews. Three of these prisoners of war, Second Lieutenants Dean E. Hallmark and William G. Farrow and Sergeant Harold A. Spatz, were executed at Shanghai in October 1942. Another, Lieutenant Robert J. Meder, died in prison more than a year later. The remaining airmen eventually returned to duty with the Army Air Forces, and twelve of these lost their lives later in the war." [1] -- Cobatfor 23:24 19 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Used by USAF until when ?

I saw this in a newspaper article "PITTSBURGH—Divers and scientists plan to spend the weekend in Pittsburgh's Monongahela River, using new technology to search the murky waters for a mystery a half-century old: the remnants of a World War II-era bomber that crashed into the river during the Cold War.

The official story is that the B-25 bomber ran out of fuel on Jan. 31, 1956, when it was on its way to Harrisburg, and plunged into the river, narrowly missing a busy Pittsburgh bridge."

Anyone know until when the B-25 was used in USAF service ?

Cheers

--W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Empirestate540.jpg

The image File:Empirestate540.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

added Noteable B-25's section

Just like the B-17 article, I've inserted a notable B-25 section. As more articles are created, please insert links to them in there.Zul32 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Ruptured Duck link down to see also, dont need a section just for links. The other is not really notable it just has survived in a museum and as such is in the survivors sub-article and is not needed in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The museum piece is not a B-25B but rather a D2 NA-100 that was reconfigured as a Doolittle raider a very long time ago. There are numerious references to this, perhabs the Museum fact even mentions it. It is common knownledge among B-25 researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyyio? Use without credit?

The description on the Chanute Air Museum site is substantially similar to versions of our article between

• November 2008 and
• June 2009

Since our article has evolved over the last four years, a little at a time, it seems clear that their article infringes on ours and not the other way around. I have sent an e-mail to the museum and its website developers asking for an appropriate credit and license. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradict 2

The section about Australian air force says "It was not until the spring of 1944 that the Australians were to get Mitchells. By the spring of 1944, No. 18 Squadron had more than enough Mitchells .....". Which is correct? Moriori (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Catch-22

The main article should include some discussion of the B-25's role in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22, as well as the instrumentality of the film of the same name in preserving many examples of the aircraft. See: B-25 Mitchell aircraft in Catch-22 (film). Sca (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, but needs relocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation incorporated into article and relocated into standard format. Heller was not named nor hyperlinked which is probalbly an oversight that could be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Strikes me that since it is unusual for a USAAF aircraft to be named after someone, it's something that ought to be addresses in the article. When did the B-25 get the name "Mitchell" and who made the choice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Users

The users section is not reflective of the primary users. The USMC and USSR exceeded the RCAF . The USN , as stated in the article, only conducted trials with G & H series. The RAF supplied other Commonwealth Nations from its Lend Lease allocations. The RCAF used much of its allocations in North America as trainers, therefore reducing the total used in combat operations. Recommend the top four as AAF, RAF, USSR, USMC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:9645:9D41:C01A:AFEA:FC0D (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

no vandalism please

Recent changes to gunship section is document in bibliography & ref above. I could not get into edit mode @ where BIBLIOGRAPHY should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for warning us about your vandalism to the article, if you dont provide corrected references for your edits then they will be removed shortly, thanks. Also if you dont sign your comments like everybody else here they are likely to be ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

stay factual mister. Moreover, if you quesstion a fact, tag citation needed i/a/w wiki protocol which allows the courtesy of of a response before you run rampant with reverts. i see you have been in called into question many times by many people as I visit other pages for your noncompliance. it won t be tolerated here. And again anonymous volunteers is SOP per Wiki so back off on your continual request for personal information. you can t be trusted with that sensitive information given your agresssive history and penchant for stalking contributor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism (from both editors here) and stalking are neither accurate, not helpful - please see WP:NPA. IP editor, if you are concerned about protecting your privacy, you need to be aware that editing without logging in permanently lists your IP address in article histories and talk pages. This address contains a fair amount of personal information about yourself (for instance, who your internet service provider is and the approximate location of their offices). Your privacy would actually be much better protected if you used a registered account as only a handful of highly trusted people can see the underlying information relating to those accounts, though of course you can continue to edit logged out if you prefer. Please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Username and privacy for more information on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This extensive series of changes[2][3][4][5][6][7] by our IP friend from Pennsylvania is characterized by having no referencing. Facts on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so this kind of adjustment or expansion requires a citation to published sources. Also, the word is spelled strafer, not straffer. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

both spellings are acceptable in american english however you are free to edit spelling. moreover citations can and have been provided at this talk page.

nick, if you don t consider this invasion of privacy and cyper following to my home cyperstalking, then your legal definitions differ from ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your appreciation of the flexibility of English spelling is not supported by dictionaries. The word is strafer.

It was not Nick-D but myself that pointed out you were editing from Pennsylvania. That fact is public knowledge, as seen by the IP address you used for two or three days in early May: 70.192.143.121. Nobody is trying to invade your privacy or cyber stalk you. It's just easier to discuss editing differences if all the parties have some sort of identity. To me, your identity is the IP-hopping guy from Pennsylvania, who is making a lot of unreferenced changes to several American warplanes articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is solid in you dictionary? Because fitting 8 guns in a solid object is unusually difficult, in fact impossible. I missed where you cited the American English dictionary you used. Regarding you lack of comprehension, I did not, in any way infer Nick made the discloure. i asked what he thought consitued cyberstalking. Which brings us right back to your misconduct. Stop the invasion of privacy. There is absolutely no need to keep publicizing my location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an invasion of your privacy - as I noted above, editing from IP addresses reveals your approximate location and a bunch of other details. By using IP accounts you are, in effect, choosing to publish these details about yourself with every post or edit. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick, with all due respect, you missed the point. There is a big difference in looking up an IP address and in interjecting my personal information into a dicussion on edits to an airplane article. I may lookup you address in a directory, but following you children home from the bus stop is a different matter indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WB-25

This is an anarchism. No, it's an anachronism. Anarchism is people with pink hair and nose piercings. WB PREFIX DID NOT APPEAR until 1947/48 and is incorrect for WWII AAF WEA a/c. Aircraft rececords show WEA in some cases. the IARC(s) for the subject B-25D do not show WB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your are probably right as most of the sources appear to be copying each other, but I cant find any reference in Andrade variant listing, which doesnt mention any B-25s using the WB prefix. Do you have a reliable reference that details these four aircraft and the fact they didnt change designation and at least we can add a note about the apparant anarchism. The current reference is http://www.hurricanehunters.com/history.htm which may not be considered a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You are not finding them because the term was not used. in the IARC the notation is normally WEA. I did not introduce the four. the Wiki on USAF designations, if traced backwards will get you to the 1948 date. Craven & Cate Vol VII covers AAF weather services around the world. There is a colored photo of one NA-100/ D2 with a 43-3XX S/n in olive drab attributed to a Wea Sq. the credit may be Merle Olsen. its been decades. Try searching that name. meanwhile, I ll try some unearthing. thanks for the improvement in conversation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

unlock page

bzuk made errorious statements at other pages that resulted in this page belocked from editing. Those statement are now recognized as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:9645:9D41:C01A:AFEA:FC0D (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

bibliography

Avery, N.L.; B-25 Mithchell The Magnificent Medium; Phalanx Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN; 1992. ISBN 0-9625860-5-6

See pages 48 et seq for the B-25 and the BIG GUN Includin pg 51 for X' and 52 for C-20/25 modifications and picture of one in sea sweep configurarion. See pages 100 for C1/D1 and 109 for G side pack in VII. see pages 114 and 120 for G-12 mods. See also Albatross instructions for Luscious Lucy and Shady Lady ( web search) and Sq/S In Action B-25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Early development

In this section is a fairly late product B-25J configured as a J2 strafer ( not as a medium bomber). Why is in this section? And please provide citation that it is assigned as captioned. The caption seems spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10C:D911:ACFD:FFF1:F0AC:6EE4 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

users

table now conforms to text and quantities. Usn did not operate the type (only trials) USMC AND USSR were major wartime users. RCAF was not per text. China was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10C:D911:ACFD:FFF1:F0AC:6EE4 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OPERATIONS

this section is a mismatch of paragraphs without an overall theme. It starts out organized by geography and swithes to organization. Thus AAF Operations in the Pacific are disjointed and the RAAF and NEI are not aligned with the Allied effort. This is one example. The overarching problem is the disorganized adding of material over time piecemeal without adhering to section topics. Who will fix this and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Flight Performance School

citation needed. Where was this and where did it align in the AAF structure of 1944/45? The picture is a later J2 strafer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

B-25 Strafers

ref: The official seven volumn history of the AAF edited by Craven and Cate. See also L. Hickey, Warpath Across the Pacific. The strafer nose conversion of the C & D series were the C1 & D1 respectively and are identified by the four MG in in-line pairs, and one fixed centerline gun in the former flex mount. These usually have the dual gun, removable shell side gunpacks, a 30 cal in the camera window and a prone position tail gun. When the J series came with two fixed starboard guns in nose, two more were fixed to the port interior and the center flex mount fixed in a five-gun nose arrangement known as the J1 subseries. (FEAF documents sometimes erroniously present these in block format, e.g. J-1, indistinguishable from the early block.)

The six gun nosed G & H conversions with two MG in the former cannon tunnel were the G1 and H1 subseries respectively.

The factory designed dual role strafer bombers were the D2 & J2 subseries and the post-production G-12 block gathered from all previous G blocks.

While only a sidenote here, crewmember gave me orders which designated them as B-25J2 crews. These pilots trained in A-20 RTU Groups first then were assigned to B-25 RTU Groups and replacement crews bound for overseas assignment. ( The designation was not hyphenated.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

PBJ-1

The land-based Marine Mitchells were not navalized and were very similar to the many radar equipped AAFAC sub hunting B-25. A navalized PBJ-1H had arresting gear for carrier trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PBJ-1D

The PBJ-D variant makes an incorrect reference to the H waist and tail. that is an error that probably predates the D2 mod/ NA-100 production coverage and should be corrected for consistency. The H/J waist position, although similar , were different in several aspects ; the tail position was completely new on the H/J and unrelated to the D2/G-12 mod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

relocated dorsal turret

The new location was not"required" by the addition of waist and tail gunners' positions. That had been done in several hundred of the interim B-25D2, NA-100, and G-12 with the mid-ship dorsal turret. As mentioned several times in the article, the dorsal turret in the forward location meant its guns could be brought to bear in straffing and forward defense. Thus the waists and tail armament "permitted" the advantagious relocation. Article corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

C/D waist and tail mods

Robins Air Depot, GA and in theater, Sidi Ahmen Air Depot modified B-25C/D and a few early G series with open waist and prone tailgunners' position for the original four MTO Mitchell Bomb Groups (less 319th). See War Baby of the South. The mod appears in many photo and is characterized by the external reinforcing stringer above the waist opening. The 321BG DEP US with the Robins mods ( see Avery, magnificent medium) . its been many decades ago I documented the mod and somewhere have the list of s/n(s) from Sidi Ahmen. Avery may cover it in his book. I supplied him with the info. I recommend you add a picture and brief paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

XII FC B-25G

The first B-25G into the MTO ( Project No. 90099-R) were placed in the XII FIGHTER COMMAND ( Not BC) and were known as fighter bombers before the term was widely applied to bombing s/e pursuit types. Some of these joined Proj. No 90101-R on DS to the NACAF (coastal air force). In early '44 all remaining MTO B-25G Became part of the 310 BG then on Corsica where they flew wing postitons in bomb on lead formations, much like the ETO P-38J FBs did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Outline

Design and development has but one subsection titled something live Early Developments. I am not about to move sections but there should be Continued Development ( with Gunships) and Later Developments ( like the J). Then Operations would be free of developmental sections. if the areas of operations and users are still maintained the some forthough is need to which discussion are area related and which are user related. there is no header for Areas of Operations at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Section added with intro as suggested above. specific topics could be moved or section left as an intro. I like that makes the image fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And removed without following wiki procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And specifically in you mind, what proceedures where not followed? because your actions, based on what you typed can be classified as arbitrary and disruptive.

Kinzey references

Please refrain from using Kinzey as a reference in this article. His books are notoriously poorly researched and contain numerious factual errors throughout. The series was a photo-essay modelers' guide and abound with misconceptions not supported by research nor offical records. The claim for the J-1 block for instance is untrue. The reinforcement plates appeared on the H-5 block which pre-dated the 1944 J-1 block ( only two J-1 were delivered in very late December 1943). The H-1 block had only starboard gun packs in continuance of the G-12 requirement , not due to failures, however the H-5 already have the package guns on both cockpit sides and reinforced plates. Moreover the J series have pilot armor on both sides while the H onlly had pilot side armor. The armor reinforced the skin as a secondary effect. Please remove the citations so the recent edit can be corrected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

info on alternating blocks

see any of several B-25 series/ block/ serial no. lists ( Avery will do, as cited in topic here). Note the J-25 and J-27 blocks and the continuation of this pattern. The desgination has een document in earlier topics. as the wiki protocol allows , anyne can added the citation if needed base on this TALK post. I truust this meets your needs. if more specifics are desired, please be more specific in the request. Otherwise, the citation needed tag is ready for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Z?

g you removed outline improvements in the d&D main section. This was previously introduced here in talk with NO objects. the article is badly disorganization. you are NOT following citation needed tag protocol. please refrain from deleting edits without following protocols. it is unneccesary distruction. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There were no improvements, rather a poorly written, unreferenced section that was not reverted, was placed into an "invisible" note. Perhaps, you may want to use a sandbox version before introducing new sections that are being constantly under review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Uniformed opinion. your splitting hairs on how you edited the public version is less than candid behavior and still outside the norm. Your behavior is not conducive to cooperation. more realistically, I don t need the sandbox as much as you need to be less malicious in your whole approach here and elsewhere (B-17, B-24). I did note on your talk page that several others were displease with abusive and frivolous approach to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B007:1A52:BB64:A4D7:DC35:303D (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Overview and Lede (Lead)

Typically, the overview is the lede (lead) of an article. The lead provides a summary or overriding statement that identifies for the reader pertinent or important facts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct and those are absent thoughout the article. topic and summary sentences are few. continuity is poor. And adherence to section heading is abysmal. have a nice day Bill. this isn t my top priority in life. An you can have your pet article just the way you like like. enough of your audience is familar with the works I ve published in the past two or three decades to notice the conspicuous errors, ommissions, and outdated references in your subpar presentation. good day. kick the next person around. you and others here seem to get great satisfaction in being dominant, aggressive types.

Oh autocompletetion does wierd things and typicall delays in showing them. so of course errors like ( it just completed as lide) lede occur. edit them. bye .

Correcting other editor's comments on talk pages is not acceptable. If, however, you are referring to edit revisions in the body of the article, that is a given. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the concept of the lede which is the opening statement or passage that introduces and summarizes the topic; it is not necessary to make summary statements throughout the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

oh wait, yes 5th grade English Comp and cold type setting. thanks, like I need that. now answer some things above on topic, the B-25. because there is a lot of "dead air" up there.

The issues that were being addressed were mainly those of style and format. As long as there are verifiable and authoritative reference sources to substantiate the submissions, editors would welcome additions and revisions to the article. Adding unreferenced, poorly written and badly misspelled contributions, not so much. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

the operators section, as explained by Wiki in the table format, is for commerical planes. for military, it is users. note the article covers this twice. in the case of the French, at least three time. better organization would improve the article; redundency and repetition, not so much.

Writing for an encyclopedia

As most Wikipedia editors appreciate, writing for an encyclopedia requires knowledge of structure as well as content. The elements of layout, style, tone, and other elements of an encyclopedia format must be present. If you plan to write articles for an encyclopedia, you have some background knowledge in formal writing that includes the rudiments of grammar and spelling, as well as about the topic at hand. Since encyclopedic articles are factual, tertiary or third-person reference sources are also important, with proper citations and bibliographic notations. These elements are not apparent in the recent submissions, although a number of editors have indicated willingness to assist in revisions and corrections. In a uniquely collaborative project like Wikipedia, it is also imperative that consensus is required for progress to take place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That is what I ve been trying to tell you. However the rampant passive voice, redundencies and run on sentences keep being reinserted. I met your experience requirements and exceed them by good margins. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If you find a spelling error, fix it; don't moan over it. your helpfulness and cooperation are in evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The above statement, notwithstanding, the sheer amount of errors in the recent edits makes work on the article daunting. All new or "starting" editors have to have at least a modicum of writing ability as well as being subject or content experts. The learning curve may be steep or mild but there is something to do before anyone can make meaningful contributions, and that is to be patient and "learn the ropes". I had tried initially to simply correct spelling errors, but there also is a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia articles are written that is evident. I have suggested that you may want to try out your initial efforts on a sandbox article before going to an article, especially one that has been stable for a long time. I completely reject the notion that an expert has come to "save the day"; the nature of Wikipedia is that it is a worldwide project of many knowledgable individuals working together to make a meaningful enterprise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Lede" a topic heading is neither a statement nor an introduction. thank you acknowledging the article's shortcoming. This is not a matter of saving the day, it is a matter of technical accuracy, cohesion and setting out the basics in therms of answers to the six basic interagatives. I am not going to argue qualifications. Yours are no greater than mine. let that suffice. Your demonstrated level of expertise on the AAF is below your general knowledge. you need to accept that. if you ant to build consesus, then act more conciliatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A lede or lead, a term derived from journalism and the setting of a lead in a newspaper, is a standard introduction to a story, whether it is in traditional print or electronic format. The lede is a summary and introductory statement and is sometimes known in corporate writing as the executive statement or summary. In journalism, the lede is the "hook", while in academic works, the lead is the precis of the article or work that precedes the main text.

In establishing consensus, there are various definitions from a business application to that of education and other applications for group decision-making. In invoking a call for consensus, all parties may have to agree to the terms of reference. For example, a business definition of consensus is not necessarily that a majority or complete acceptance is required "jury style" but that an acceptable resolution is accepted, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Standard headings in an aircraft article

Referring to the style guide for aircraft articles, the Aircraft Project Group recommends the following: The style of the aircraft article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aircraft_2> can be structured along these lines:

1. The development and history behind the aircraft, often discussing why a manufacturer, airline, or air force felt there was a need for such an aircraft.
2. The design and major features of the aircraft. This can be combined with above section as "Design and development" if both sections are small, or if the text works better it they are covered together.
3. The Operational history, describing the history of the aircraft in use. This section is something like a "biography" of the aircraft.
4. Major variants and subtypes of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done.
5. The operators, usually a collection of links to airlines or individual air force squadrons that used this type. May be separated into Military and Civilan sections if applicable and workable.
6. A list of survivors; aircraft exhibited in museums. If a large number of aircraft are still preserved, the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.
7. Specifications. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Outline Appeal

Looking at the outline, four (4) subheading are grossly misplaced. I ve discussed some before and tried several not disruptive outline fixes. All were quickly deleted without discussion although there was an open and ongoing talk topic. Please look look at the three sub-sub section under Operational History, Users, USAAF. There one will find three Design and Development topics header substantially: Gunships; Return of the Medium Bomber; and Flight Characteristics. The latter is totally unrelated to combat operations. Even within itself it meanders into USAF post-war variants, the post-war Haynes Modifications, showbirds on the show circuit, and physical imparements. Much of the discussion is unreferenced, needing citations. The parargraphs on the April 18, 1942 raid also contain development of th B, C, and D series that are misplace and need to be moved to Design and Development.

The fourth misplaced section under Users is the Empire St. Bldg crash aligned with the foreign user. Perhaps the closest place for this single incident would be with events in the media. it is outside the scope of the section in which it sits. it requires a move ( a move is required.) [Done. thanks]

the design and Development section can accomodate the other very easily with just a little introduction. I ve discussed and demonstrate this previously. ( It has been discuss .)

How soon will the changes appear? And by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)