Talk:Aerial warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Aerial warfare:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : *Article needs citations to references.

First combat use of computers in Vietnam War?[edit]

In the article under the Vietnam Section there is a passage that says ""Rolling Thunder saw the first combat use of electronic computers aboard PIRAZ ships to display comprehensive real-time aircraft position information for force commanders.[130]"". I highly remember that in WWII there was a computer that calculated artillery trajectories and therefore this needs to be changed to either that Rolling Thunder was the first Aerial Combat use of computers or define First use in a way which excludes previously mentioned artillery computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Military aviation[edit]

In my oppinion aerial warfare is a subset of military aviation. Military aviation is the larger set, because it includes operations in peacetimes. 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Discuss this on the Military avaiation talk page to keep things tidy.

General Talk[edit]

Just made a start on this. Please feel free to add. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just started "air war" a few minutes ago!Doovinator 19:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought Coral Sea was the first sea battle fought entirely by aircraft, not Midway. It was certainly earlier. PatGallacher 11:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Note: Correct, Coral Sea was the first clash of carriers; Coral Sea was a stratigic US victory, but a Japanese tactical victory. Midway was a decisive US victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that some of the stuff written here is wild generalisation. If you're reading this, please don't take it seriously. DJ Clayworth 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What about the Battle of Adrianople (1913) It is known that aeroplanes were used by the Bulgarians -- 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs Work.[edit]

Lots of it. Far too general. Guapovia 22:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Three sections in each sub section: Observation, Fighter, and Bombing Missions. Can be used to comment on the individual changes in aerial strategy.


This line was removed from the article. Everything about it is inaccurate including the link at the end. There are many web sites that are reporting inaccurate informatioin about hot air balloons in the Civil War. The Union Army used gas filled balloons.

The Union Balloon Corps, with seven balloons including the Enterprise, was run by Thaddeus Lowe who developed a system of gas pumps to inflate his balloons in the field.[1]

Magi Media 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media


The line "The U-2 at its time was supposed to be invulnerable to defensive measures, due to its extreme altitude. It therefore came as a great shock when the Soviets downed one piloted by Gary Powers with a ground-to-air missile." is not really true. The CIA (who operated the flights) and indeed Eisenhower, always knew that it was just a matter of time until the Soviets developed a method to shoot down the U-2s. Even the manufacturer, Lockheed, expected it, and so began work on the next generation of spy planes (namely the Sr-71) in anticipation. The "great shock" was that the timing of the downing, which cam just before the paris peace conference and contributed to the sense of cold war between the USA and USSR. --Corinthian 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I've removed the "great shock" phrase 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How Enterprising[edit]

I don't know if it's a coincidence or what, but the major balloon used in the Battle of Fleurus by the French was l'entreprenant. I'm sure Lowe read about it, and his wife Leontine was French. But their first big balloon they saved up for and built was the Enterprise which is the closest translation to the French name. Maybe not so coincidental.--Magi Media 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad coverage[edit]

  • This article is totally missing the sense and use of miltary air lift capacity and capability as was so critical in so many theatures and conflicts (re: General William H. Tunner), not to mention airborne operations and today's air cavalry. // FrankB 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is two years later and I second the the thought. I wish I had the time to contribute material myself. I would include Franco's transfer of troops during the Spanish Civil War, the failed Stalingrad airlift, the "Hump," the Berlin airlift, and the countless logistical miracles the USAF and other services have performed since 1960. (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)RKH

Let's Fly a Kite?[edit]

I just have one question on the validity of the rather short and blunt section about China flying kites for reconaissance missions. How does that work? They didn't have any cameras, sensors, or PEOPLE on board the kite, so how can this be true?

When did that actually happen, anyway? Is there a source?

AceFighterPilot 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, is there any evidence for this? 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is evidence. See this version and Buckley pp.22-23.

Chinese Lanterns[edit]

Does a floating Chinese lantern really qualify as aerial warfare? 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is used as a signaling device to friendly troops—yes, but I haven't found any evidence for this use. In this version of the article, you can find the reference to Boyne p.370, but he only make a very brief reference to "reports" of balloons being used in Ancient China.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aerial Warfare[edit]

If I may humbly point out, this article appears to be more on the History of Aerial warfare then the actual aerial warfare in the tactics, operational and strategic sense. For example I was surprised to find that Patrol Area, one of the basic aerial warfare concepts since WWI redlinked on me, and I can find no other article to point to, with Combat Air Patrol also missing. -- mrg3105mrg3105 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah Drone[edit]

Any sources? (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)pkmilitia

Yes, I just added a couple of references.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon War 2006[edit]

Israel started Lebanon war 2006 by an intensive aerial campaign aimed to eliminate Hezbollah and destroy all its capabilities as stated by israeli prime minister. It also aimed to return the kidnapped soldiers. The campaign started by destroying lebanese infrastructure and Hezbollah targets. This continued during the 33 days of the war. The importance of this war to the history of aerial campaigns lies in the fact that its the first war in the modern history that didn't reach its goals through the use of air force. Taking into consideration the results of 1990 and 2003 wars on iraq and 1998 war on former yogoslavia, the israeli air force which is one of the strongest in the world couldn't reach the set goals. This lies on the military doctrine that Hezbollah used in the war which proved effective in facing such kinds of wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

article name[edit]

I'd like to ask which name is better for an article from the following

Air warfare tactics


Aerial warfare tactics


air combat tactic

or aerial combat tactic
or...something else--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aerial combat & Air to air combat[edit]

The first is currently redirected to Aerial warfare, the second to dogfight. However, they are neither!

A dogfight, as the name implies is combat between two aircraft. Moreover, it is between two fighter aircraft.

Aerial combat can take place between multiple aircraft, and not just fighters. While aerial warfare includes engagement by aircraft of both air and surface targets, and includes air to air combat, it seems to me a separate article is required for aerial combat that generally takes place, or had taken place, at squadron or below level of command.

The question is, should this article be named aerial combat or air to air combat? There is no category for aerial combat, and Category:Aerial maneuvers seeks to seemingly describe the dogfight. Category:Aerial warfare tactics also seems suitable, and it presumably includes both the air to air and air to surface tactics used by aircraft. So, what should the article on combat between aircraft at squadron, flight and pair be called?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the correctness of the 1965 Indo-pak war[edit]

The war of 1965 was far from inconclusive , the accuracy of the section can be questioned to a certain degree. Further data is required and analysis is required to ascertain the true extent of the aerial warfare that took place over the subcontinent in 1965.

is a good source of information. but note binding even thought this website delivers a good qualitative analysis it must also be seen that the listed "victories" also contain claimed and unconfirmed entries so caution is advised as with all wartime results and figures that are distorted to provide a moral booster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaping Holes in Coverage[edit]

There's plenty of room for coverage of other important topics. There was almost no coverage at all of naval air power in WWII, and none at all of the US B-29 bombing, including Hiroshima. Korea was two sentences. The balloon coverage is absurdly detailed, it should be moved into its own article and given a short blurb. The middle east 1967 six day war and 1973 conflict is less than one paragraph. This is a topic that's actually in the Britannica encyclopedia, so it should get more coverage than this. There are lots of articles on aircraft and battles than can be moved here as long as it's trimmed down to fit in this timeline. Bachcell (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! Go for it. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Air Strike Tracker, a reference?[edit]

We are maintaining a database of reported airstrikes that affected civilians on the website, here: Air Strike Tracker --Neilhalloran (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight to the Marines[edit]

I'm certain the failure to mention the Marine Corp. AV-8B role in this conflict is a very sore spot. Personally I think that is the major reason my brother-in-law left the Marines after actually being good enough to qualify for 'top gun'.

Background: Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loyalgadfly (talkcontribs) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

G-suits and Korea[edit]

Korea was NOT the first time g-suits were used in combat. They were used by the RAF and the USAAF from at least mid-1944 on. This incorrect little tidbit of information has been inserted into this article as well as the article on the Korean War. Repetition does not make it true. (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1971 war and PAF[edit]

the section regarding 1971 war has many flaws. 1- the PAF's 14 squadron was not destroyed, it was grounded after 60 hrs of combat against 11 indian squadrons and since 21 november 1971 it had destroyed 11 indian warplanes for the loss of only 5. 1 warplane was lost to an accident (wrongly claimed by india over gharibpur/boyra), the rest of the 10 planes were scutteled, 4 of which were recovered by bengalis and used till 1974. 2- the PAF did not take part in the highly-controversial battle of longewala only cuz shehbaz airbase in jacobabad was not mobalized. moreover indias jaisalmir airbase was put out of action subesequently wen a c-130 bombed it and inflicted 200 casualties. 3-the PAF did not tak part in 2 indian missile boat attacks on karachi for sure, but 2 points, first the oil tanks (3 in number having 15000 tons of oil) were destroyed by IAF not by indian missile boats and secondly the indian missile boat base of okha was also put out of action when bombed by a b-57 destroying several oil tanks, thus ceasing further missile boat actions. 4- PAF did not decrease her sorties, if compared to 1965 PAF flew more sorties, destroying 134 indian warplanes 107 on the western frnt ( ACM abdur rahim khan) while another 27 on the eastern front. 33 indian wreckages were discovered photographed and registered, i hav pics of them if u want...... these corrections must be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mönchengladbach not the first strategic bombing, nor the first bombing of civilians[edit]

I removed the following text from this article:

The British started a strategic bombing campaign of German cities in May 1940 that was to last for the rest of the war. The first area bombing raid on a German city was at Monchengladbach on 11 May 1940.[1]


  1. ^ Selwood, Dominic (2015-02-13). "Dresden was a civilian town with no military significance. Why did we burn its people?".

The main reasons I removed the text are because the Mönchengladbach attack was not an "area bombing" and because it is not named in reliable sources as the first example of strategic bombing by British forces. Rather it is an example of the British aerial response to the German army invasion of Belgium, a tactical air raid with the aim of disrupting German movement. Civilians were not targeted, though a few were killed. This was not a significant attack, and is not worthy of mention in such a high level article as this.

Another reason for my removal is that the newspaper source is not as reliable as the regular military histories and socio-anthropological analyses. The newspaper source fails to cite its sources, and appears to be jumping to conclusions.

FYI, here's what I added just now to the Mönchengladbach article:

In response to the 10 May 1940 German invasion of Belgium, Mönchengladbach was bombed by British Bomber Command on the evening of 11–12 May. The bomber crews were attempting to interdict German troop movement on railroads and intersections in the area. About half of the 36 or 37 twin-engine RAF bombers reportedly hit their targets, and three were shot down.[1][2][3] Four people were killed on the ground, including an English woman living in Germany.[4]


  1. ^ Grayling, A. C. (2011). Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?. A&C Black. p. 27. ISBN 9781408827901.
  2. ^ Spingola, Deanna (2014). The Ruling Elite. Trafford Publishing. pp. 541–2. ISBN 9781490734743.
  3. ^ Diefendorf, Jeffry M. (1993). In the Wake of War : The Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II: The Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780195361094.
  4. ^ Bowman, Martin (2011). Bomber Command: Reflections of War. Casemate. pp. 41–2. ISBN 9781848844926.

Another reason I removed the Mönchengladbach attack from this article is because the widely named example of the first British area bombing of a city was the "thousand-bomber" attack on Cologne one year later.[2][3] So, again, Mönchengladbach is not an example of that. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The bombing of Mannheim on 16 December 1940 was the first major British area bombing raid of a German city. The bombing of Monchengladbach on 11 May 1940 was a much smaller area bombing raid but the intention was the same. Unfortunately the widely-held view that the Germans bombed Britain first is just an urban myth. (JudgeDfg (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC))
Ah, yes, I thought that might be your aim, to try and disprove a widely held view. Unfortunately for your case, there are high quality reliable sources which tell us that the Mönchengladbach was a tactical raid rather than an area bombing, or any kind of strategic bombing, or any kind of targeting of civilians. So it doesn't fit into your narrative. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

After searching the wiki for that Telegraph URL, I found that two confirmed HarveyCarter sockpuppet accounts brought it into talk pages recently, both of the accounts being blocked by Risker for socking. First, HarryLogwood added the argument to the talk page of Winston Churchill on 13 February,[4] then the next day TaylorLaundry brought the same argument to Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II.[5] Six hours later, Risker blocked both of these accounts following a checkuser action requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter.
I expect our new friend JudgeDfg is on the same roll. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Presumably if the Nazi government hadn't wanted its own cities bombed it wouldn't have gone round bombing everyone else's first.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aerial warfare. 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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)