Talk:F-105 Thunderchief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article F-105 Thunderchief has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA-Class
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Missile retrieval

One of only two aircraft to capture an enemy antiaircraft missile. Atol air-to-air missile failed to explode and wedged itself into the fuselage of an F-105.

[edit] Expansion

I have considerably expanded this article. Please copyedit, expand, and reference as necessary. - Emt147 Burninate! 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


That is a lot of work! How do you do this so fast? --plumalley

I've had a lot of free time in the past few weeks, I'll be busier starting on Monday. Plus it's hard to stop once you start writing. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THUD RIDGE

Hurry hurry before somebody finds out about your navigation.

Thud Ridge is not south of Hanoi, it is north. 21 16 47N, 105 49 37E north to 21 39 30N, 105 29 22E easily seen on Google-Earth--plumalley

It was necessary to fly completely around Hanoi and approach from the NW, to avoid the world's most heavily defended air space. --plumalley

I've updated the article with this information and the coordinates. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--plumalley

[edit] PAUL DOUMER BRIDGE

There is an article on Paul Doumer, the French Engineer. He build a REALLY! solid bridge that was highly resistant to destruction by 750 pound bombs. We lost a LOT of airplanes trying to take that bridge down. It was a repeat target, and AAA guns were permanently situatated at both ends of the bridge. You can see it north-central of Hanoi, across the Red River, on Google Earth. Finally we tried with 3000 lb bombs, one on each wing, only the F-105 (fighter in the world?) being able to use this weapon??. Despite our not getting the kind of sequenced release pattern possible with five x 1000. I don't know how long we worked on that bridge. I remember losing four airplanes in a single day on that bridge. Some hot fighter pilot will pehaps have more and more precise info on this bridge. We wrote a SONG about the bridge.--plumalley

[edit] OOPS

No it is not a series of hills, it is a single razor back ridge, standing all by itself in the Red River Valley bottom; a signal visual navigaional location for stressed fighterpilots, behind which they could hide, one side or the other, usually the north side, from SAM Unfortunately, there was a Mig fighter field at the south end, where we could look, not not shoot--plumalley.

It is not between the Red and Black rivers.

Thank you. I've corrected the article. Have you had any first-hand experience with the Combat Martin F-105Fs that were supposed to jam MiG communications? Judging by their very limited deployment I guess they were not especially successful but the information on this project is very limited. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five Weasels lost by August 1965

I don't know about 1965, and the F-100s. Me and mine arrived at the 354 TFS Takhli, in July 1966 with five "F"s and 8 crews. (the proper ratio to keep the aircrft flying) I think four aircraft were gone by October,without available replacements, two crews MIA, two rescued; plus my pilot disabled--plumalley

[edit] REALLY GREAT JOB OF EDITING

It is difficult to talk about the deficiencies of the 105, and get a 'balance" You did great!--plumalley

[edit] KAMIKAZI

In discussing life with the F-105 you might want to look into what may be a myth, or may be fact; namely that the nuclear SIOP missions east from Germany were one-way;

I knew we were SIOP tasked to return our B-52 from Rostov half way around the world to Edwards AFB salt flats to be recycled with fuel, weapons and crew. It was possible, though unlikely. --plumalley

I think if nuclear war were to start, all missions would have been one way. The F-101B Voodoo had a hard enough time escaping the blast of a mere 1.5 kT Genie rocket. I don't know how well a low-level strike fighter like F-105 would have fared after tossing a megaton-range explosive. I know toss bombing was practiced but as far as I know they never actually tried it for real so all the evasive maneuvers and chances of survival were very much theoretical. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes; but my question concerns the official battle plan. There were lengthy procedures in place to get MY B-52 back. Land & refuel depots were planned at Tehran, Khrtoum, Dakar,, Racfe, to get us to California. Our weapons were all parachute "lay-down" with a timer, no problem about detonation.. The question which is really interesting: Did SIOP direct nuclear delivery F-105's to clear the target area and soon bailout upon fuel exhaustion? I think I heard this from Buddy, my pilot.

Concerning Thule AFB I have noted in the discussion that I flew reconnaissance from here in 1956. It is a very interesting story , but perhaps not a suitable insertion in the time line. I have added considerable words last month in the B-47 article We were the flight that was shot at and got away.---plumalley

I can believe that F-105 strikes were one-way missions. The interdiction would've happened at high speed and low altitude which means afterburner and gobbing up tremendous amounts of fuel. Afterburner-on range for most military aircraft is in the hundreds of miles.
Very interesting about the B-47. I recently met the son of late Francis Gary Powers who started a Cold War museum on the east coast. As I understand he is planning to include a tribute to all the reconnaissance crews that disappeared while flying missions along the borders of the Soviet Union. I remember seeing MiG gun camera footage of a burning turboprop (P-3 Orion maybe, I honestly don't recall), very scary. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Martin

According to Dr. Alfred Price's excellent books on the history of electronic warfare, Combat Martin was used exactly once.

National Security Agency signals intelligence officers suddenly realized that the USAF was trying to jam North Vietnamese fighter-control channels and immediately told the Air Force to cease and desist -- from the NSA's point of view, the intelligence obtained from monitoring the communications outweighed the benefits from jamming them.

The Air Force might not have agreed, but the NSA was the law in the signals domain, and that was the end of Combat Martin.

Just an input to Wikipedians. I am not a member of this community and have no plans to become one.

MrG (Greg Goebel) / www.vectorsite.net

Thank you for the input and thanks for the excellent VectorSite. I will track down the reference and add this information. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is discussed in the encyclopedic HISTORY OF US ELECTRONIC WARFARE (Volume III) published by the Association of Old Crows (the EW community society) on page 143. This is THE book on US EW. However, it is only available from the Old Crows and it costs an arm and a leg -- it's only for people who are strongly interested in EW. I tried to add this detail but the editors refused to accept it though I had provided a citation. Sigh, what I get for bothering to edit WKPD articles -- "never again". Price did publish a seriously condensed version of the HISTORY in the general press as WAR IN THE FOURTH DIMENSION, but it's maybe about an eighth as long and I don't believe it covers Combat Martin. If you don't want to take me word for it, you can either (a) buy the HISTORY or (b) leave a note here and I will email a scan of the page. MrG 4.225.213.210 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "tape instrument"?

The article mentions it:

The F-105 had a spacious cockpit with a good layout (particularly after introduction of "tape" instruments)

—Bromskloss 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Via google images, 2nd page using search terms tape instrument... vertical tape gauges displaying engine information. I'm no avionics expert, so thats all I can add. Dual Freq 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We think of classic aircraft dashboard indicators as dials, but they could be hard to read, and so later in the days of analog cockpits there was a tendency to go to linear instead of circular indicators, with the value indicated by a bar or "tape" moving up (or across) the linear range of values.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

[edit] The real Gunfighter

The F-8 Crusader is often touted as the "last of the gunfighters, even though botht he F-104 and F-105 had internal guns. In fact, the F-8 has no pure gun kills, while the F-105 has 24.5! I'll try to line up my sources on this; it's an amazing, little-known fact that the F-105 scored at least 27.5 kills in Viet Nam, 2 with the Sidewinder. - BillCJ 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this on http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf105.html:

Flak and SAMs were the worst hazard, taking down 312 F-105s. North Vietnamese MiGs claimed 22 Thunderchiefs, but the Thuds more than evened the score, with the F-105 credited with the destruction of 27.5 MiGs. Interestingly, 24.5 of these kills were performed with cannon alone. This is very much the opposite of the kill records of the other major fighter types in the war, the Vought F-8 Crusader and the F-4 Phantom, in which most kills were achieved with missiles.

This record is probably as much to the credit of the M61 gun as to the F-105 itself. - BillCJ 02:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. 24.5 F-105 cannon kills (all MiG-17s) vs. 15.5 for F-4. I have the refs to support this information and will add it to the article soon. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

It meets all criteria except few grammar mistakes & lack of citation. A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
(c) It follows certain elements' of the Wikipedia Manual of style, namely the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation."
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material; MORE REFERENCES PLEASE
(b) it must be possible to trace all sources of an article through inline citations that use an accepted form. Articles or sections on Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry should, however, adhere to the guideline on scientific citations.
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
(d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

[edit] Grammar Mistakes

  • The largest single-engined fighter ever employed by the service, it saw extensive use during the Vietnam War in both strike and SEAD roles. No naked "it" please.
  • Despite the fighter designation, the primary intended role of the F-105 was high-speed low-altitude penetration into enemy airspace with a single nuclear bomb in the internal bomb bay. "Despite the jet's fighter designation, the F-105 received the primary role of high-speed low-altitude penetration into the enemy airspace with a single nuclear bomb in the internal bomb bay." I think the description about the bomb being in the internal bomb bay sounds unnecessary & kind of obvious.
  • First flying in 1955, the Thunderchief entered service in 1958. "The Thunderchief first flew in 1955 and entered service in 1958"
  • Typical of advanced aircraft at the time + the
  • early models suffered from multiple problems with the electronics, the fuel system, and the engine. "the early models suffered from multiple problems with the electronic, fuel, and engine systems"
  • the single-seat single-engine F-105 I'm not sure how aircraft terminologies work, but maybe "single seated and engined F-105" would sound better.
  • four-engined ten-man "ten-manned and four engined" if you're going to follow the previous correction, then this should be the pattern.
  • at much higher speed. "at a much higher speed"
  • As the result "As a result"
  • Two-seat F-105F and F-105G Wild Weasel variants were the first dedicated anti-air defense platforms fighting against the Soviet-built S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missiles. It's kind of abrupt here, switching from Vietnam War to types of variants. Rather, go like "Later, two-seat variants of the Thunderchief, F-105F and F-105G Wild Weasel, were introduced as anti-air defense platforms against the Soviet-built S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missiles"
  • Although it weighed 50,000 pounds (22,680 kg), the F-105 could Don't use naked "it"
  • The Thunderchief was retired in 1984, with a total of 833 aircraft built. Don't use passive, use active
  • with a total of 833 aircraft built. +s
  • By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. No naked "it"
  • The first flight of the YF-105A prototype was made on 22 October 1955 Active rather than passive: "The prototype YF-105A took first flight on 22 October 1955"
  • (109.0 kN) "{109.0 kN}"
  • attained Mach 1.2 "attained the speed of Mach 1.2"
  • However, aerodynamic problems with transonic drag and insufficient power, as well as Convair's experience with their F-102 Delta Dagger, led to a redesign of the fuselage to conform to the Area rule, giving it a characteristic "wasp waist". "However, the lack of engine power and the aerodynamic deficiency in regards to the transonic drag"? Or are you saying that transonic drag and insufficient power both contributed to the aerodynamic problems?
  • led to a redesign of the fuselage to conform to the Area rule, Too many "to"s here. "in order to"
  • In combination with the distinctive forward-swept variable-geometry air intakes and the J75 engine, this enabled the resulting F-105B to attain Mach 2.15. "The new forward-swept variable-geometry air intakes and the J75 engine enabled the F-105B to attain the maximum speed of Mach 2.15" Could you explain variable-geometry air intakes?
  • continuing the Republic Aviation's sequence of P-47 Thunderbolt "Aviation's nomenclature sequence"

[edit] Other Problems

  • Could you provide citations for the infos in the intro?
  • Also, the references should have page numbers.
  • The dates switch pattern: 28 June 1954, June 19... I guess 28 June is like that because year's behind it while June 19 doesn't have one... & maybe that's how the military uses the dates... but it sounds awkward to me.
  • I don't think that you need an "Operator" section when there was only one operator & it's already listed in the template box in the intro.
  • I'd say that, in the Costs section, the paragraph should come first & then the data.

[edit] Conclusion

  • On hold.
  • All of the problems identified above, including lack of references, grammar mistakes, etc., must be addressed.
  • When those problems have been addressed, this article should definitely be a good article.

Forgot the sign. (Wikimachine 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for the detailed feedback! I have addressed most of your concerns. To decrease citation clutter, in many cases I limited citations to the end of the paragraph with the understanding that they apply to the preceding text. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did the same for some of the articles I edited, so I understand. Then since most of the problems have been addressed, this should be a featured article! (Wikimachine 23:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Air superiority

THe F-105 was primarily a strike aircraft. It did carry the M61, and later Sidewinders, for self-defense, which is how its air-to-air kills occurred. It shot down about as many MiGs as MiGs shot down 105s, a pretty poor record for a dogfighter. I beleive this is backed up by the majority of the sources used in the article. Please establish verifiable sources to prove otherwise,a nd wait for a consensus before re-adding you contentions. THanks. - BillCJ 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the plane was used in dogfights, as was already stated mid-way through the article, it just wasn't as effective as the Phantom. Before the Phantom, it was the 105's secondary job to clear the sky of MiGs if that's what it took to get to the target and back in one piece. When the USAF created a separate escort mission for the Phantom, it became a dedicated air superiority role which, you would be correct, the F-105 really only got as a part-time job since it's main job was delivering boom. F-105 was featured in a dogfights TV episode that also emphasized the plane wasn't meant to tangle with MiGs, but just because a plane was not designed to dogfight doesn't mean that combat in an F-4 or F-15 is a dogfight, but isn't when using an F-105. I may help out with those A quality issues later. --Usertaffy3 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that it was the F-105's "secondary job to clear the sky of MiGs". If that is what the TV show is stating, it is wrong. The F-105s only defended themselves when attacked, which is not the same thing as having a secondary air to air role. However, the F-105 was fast at low altiutudes, could take damage, and carried an excellent cannon that is still in use today. These all gave it a fighting chance against the MiGs. Being "in" a dogfight is not the same thing as being "used for" dogfights. There is a great difference. - BillCJ 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You even noted above that the plane used guns in dogfights, (last gunfighter) The plane shot down 27 MiGs, but you are claiming that it wasn't doing air superiority, air combat or dogfighting, and it wasn't even its secondary job to shoot down MiGs. F4F Wildcat wasn't as good as the Zero either, and the Buffalo was pathetic, by comparison the F-105 was more than competitive even when its main job was bombing. lessons learned by F-105 pilots led to development of the FX / F-15 specification. Ok, leave it the way you want it.--Usertaffy3 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between offensive air superiority missions, and defensive actions. Yes, the F-105 shot down 27.5 MiGs, but this was in the course of their regular bombing missions; Migs showed up, and they shot at them. They were not used to escort other strike aircraft, as the F-4 was used. If you can find printed or web sources which back up what the TV show stated, we can check out the sources, and see what they say about this. But from everything I have read to this point, the show is wrong. - BillCJ 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Taffy, Dogfights is yet another Discovery/History turd chock-full of gross inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations. The fact of the matter is that F-105s did not carry Sidewinders into combat very often (being strike aircraft, the pylons were better used for a pair of bombs) and thus had to rely on the internal cannon for defensive armament. Therefore, it should not be surprising that most F-105 air-to-air victories were cannon kills. Despite the "F" designation, the Thud was never designed for air combat, being much closer to the likes of A-5 and B-58 in the concept -- a fact that would've been entirely clear if you had bothered to read the article before editing it. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Usertaffy, air attack strategy in the early supersonic era was'slash & run'. The F104 starfighter, according to old CDN vets, wasn't a dogfight aircraft etiher.

Secondary users tend to be one plane fleets,& there the f105 'did it all'.

thanks Opuscalgary 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, only the F-105 was not in a one plane-type fleet (one plane does not a fleet make :) ). The US was the only user of the F-105. Still, the point is that the F-105 defended themselves when attacked, but were not assigned to air superiority missions, or to "escort" other attacke craft. THe F-105 defeated MiGs in combat 27.5 to 15, thats not a bad reacord for a strike aircraft! And as discussed several posts above, it scored many more gun kills than the famed "Last of the Gunfighters", the F-8 Crusader! - BillCJ 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interresting! I thought Vietnam used them. Oh well. My apologies for the Avro rhubarb, Bill old chap. Had the double message fwd to me. Believe we have sorted out the debate....In any case, Mcdonnell gave Canada a heck of a deal on those f101 Voodoos. Superb plane for the money.


caio

23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage

Why do people keep adding garbage sections like "Legacy" and "Culture"? POV, editorializing, no citations, no contribution to the article. Go make your own fan website, this is no place for stuff like that. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I TOTALLY support the removal of such content. Thanks for beating me to it; it's hard to get the smell off my keyboard after I take that garbage out. If this sort of thing keeps up, I will seek administrative action agaist this user and his apparent use of sockpuppets in this endevor. - BillCJ 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forget FA-status, let'd go for B-class!

Due to recent edits by one editor in particular, esp his voluminous additons of poorly-edited and badly-thought-out material, I believe this article is no longer GA material. This is an encyclopedia article, not a repository of all material ever written on a subject, sometimes verbatim! As long as this editor continue to work on this article without any discretion whatsoever, I believe we can have a B-class article by the end of the year, if not much sooner! - BillCJ 05:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 assertions

Whoever the IP user is (if you want people to take you seriously, register), stop adding the Phantom speculation and editorializing on the basis of:

  1. The references you cited did not support the claims you made (F-4 fitted with cannon thanks to F-105 air combat experience and the suggestion that the F-105 was used in the air combat role before the F-4 came along)
  2. Your comparative discussion of F-105 vs. F-4 had no grounding in credible references and was thus is violation of WP:NOR
  3. Learn proper Wikipedia writing style, particularly WP:NPOV. Ungrounded superlatives have no place in an encyclopedic article.
  4. This is an article about F-105, not F-4. The F-4 is already addressed in sufficient detail (noted as the replacement and the reason for decreased number of orders) and does not warrant further discussion in this article. If you have something useful to add about the F-105 please do so, abiding by WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and with a healthy dose of (much needed) proof-reading, good grammar, and spell-checking. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, 71.164.9.103 (talk · contribs), an IP from the Seattle area, sounds like Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs), also from the Seattle area. Though they never edited this article, the material reads just like the POV they used to push especially on the F-14 article. Frequent POV pushing about McNamara as well. They also had a problem with the F-111, similar to this edit from the IP addy. They both edited the Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 article as well. Wiarthurhu was indef blocked, but has frequently employed IP's and sockpuppets. --Dual Freq 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right! All this stuff reads just like Wiarthurhu's previous writing, especially the comments related to maneuverability, the F/A-18, F-14. It's probably him.--LWF 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if they come back, it's sockpuppetry. IPs are easy to block. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of kills

First i must say that this is one of the best aircraft reference aticles i have read on Wikipedia and the editors must be thanked for their efforts.

One point though i have noticed on Wikipedia in general is that while kill scores are provided they are never linked to any referenced for confirmation. If the NVAF claim by type they must more accurately hold loss by type and hence a number generated for verified kills rather than just using USAF numbers, quoting them as fact and not making the statement that they are USAF credits. I totally understand that this is something very difficult to do, but as Wikipedia is an international project i think this is important to ensure neutrality of any article (while simutaniously providing greater confidence in USAF numbers). Wikipedia process states that the burden of proof is always on the editor. I shall try to do some digging but maybe there are more informed and qualified people who could help in this regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.244.246.25 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

OK, checked out the numbers on ACIG, Wings of Fame articles by Dr. Zoltan Buza/Dr. István Toperczer and other publications by Dr. István Toperczer, Mark Styling, and Iain Wyllie . I come out with 60 F-105s claimed by the VPAF, 34 agreeing with US losses, 32 claims off the USAF in F-105s of which is stated all are confirmed. (I have all the references) Anyone care to comment? Should these number be included under the NPOV policy of Wikipedia? (or should i put them in the MiG-17/21 section?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.209.109 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure what number you are referring to. 32 what? 34 what? - Emt147 Burninate! 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kills, the section is about kills. Sorry if i was not clear. 32 air-to-air kills of VPAF fighters by USAF F-105s (all of which are confirmed apparently). 34 confirmed air-to-air kills of F-105s by VPAF fighters of various types of an original 60 claimed (by the VPAF).

Where are you getting 32? My sources, including the official USAF publication listing all air-to-air victories of the war, say 27.5. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
ACIG, their list are not offical are a little more complicated, based on as much evidence from both sides as possible (hence they were able to add Lt.Cdr. Speicher F/A-18 Gulf War shoot down before the USN admitted it). They work from the claim lists and then gather evidence. I have ordered the offical USAF credit listings for Vietnam but ACIG has proved pretty reliable in the past. Here is what they have:

4Apr65 355 F-105D Bennet 20mm MiG-17

4Apr65 355 F-105D Magnusson 20mm MiG-17

14Oct65 36/644 F-105D Shuler MiG-17

Yes 29Jun66 421/388 TFW F-105D F.Tracy 20mm MiG-17

Yes 18Aug66 34/388 TFW F-105D K. Blank 20mm MiG-17

Yes 21Sep66 421/388 TFW F-105D K. Richter 20mm MiG-17

Yes 21Sep66 333/355 TFW F-105D F. Wilson 20mm MiG-17

Yes 4Dec66 469/388 TFW F-105D R. Dickey 20mm MiG-17

Yes 10Mar67 354/355 TFW F-105D M. Brestel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 10Mar67 354/355 TFW F-105D M. Brestel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 26Mar67 333/355 TFW F-105D R. Scott 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D J. Hunt 20mm MiG-17

19Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D H. Johnson 20mm MiG-17 (see below)

Yes 19Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D L. Thorsness/Johnson 20mm MiG-17 Actually F-105F, counted twice by ACOG

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D F. Tolman 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D W. Eskew 20mm MiG-17

Yes 28Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D A. Dennis 20mm MiG-17

Yes 28Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D H. Higgins 20mm MiG-17

Yes 30Apr67 333/355 TFW F-105D T. Lesan 20mm MiG-17

Yes 12May67 333/355 TFW F-105D J. Suzanne 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 333/355 TFW F-105D C. Osborne AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 13May67 333/355 TFW F-105D R. Rilling AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 13May67 44/388 TFW F-105D M. Seaver Jr. 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 354/355 TFW F-105D C. Couch 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 354/355 TFW F-105D P. Gast 20mm MiG-17

Yes 3Jun67 13/388 TFW F-105D R. Kuster Jr. 20mm MiG-17

Yes 3Jun67 469/388 TFW F-105D L. Wiggins AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 23Aug67 34/388 TFW F-105D D. Waldrop III 20mm MiG-17

Yes 18Oct67 333/355 TFW F-105D D. Russell 20mm MiG-17

Yes 27Oct67 354/355 TFW F-105D G. Basel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Dec67 357TFS/355 TFW F-105E P.Drew/W.Wheeler 20mm MiG-17 (F-105F in USAF records, the F-105E was never built)

Yes 19Dec67 333TFS/355 TFW F-105F W.Dalton J.Graham 20mm MiG-17 1/2 credit only, shared with Moore/McKinney F-4C

Total 32 - they normally specify 0.5 credits, maybe that is where this mismatch is originating.

How does that compare to the offical list?

I do not have any issue with quoting the 27.5 number other than it should specify "...the USAF offically credits F-105 pilots with..." rather than just making a blanket statement that they shot down X number. This allows the reader to understand the origin of the number and make his/her judgment, conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Just an opinion... Kill lists are very much a topic of continuing research and hence should be treated as such - quoting (to the best of an individual's knowledge) the origin of their number. This means that if the number are re-addressed and subsequently change the author is above reproach as an understanding can exist of why these number exist in the text, especially for someone new to the topic. I am trying to be as open as i can in this, hence why i do not unilaterally edit, that is why it is here as a topic of discussion and no more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.196.76 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I put "yes" marks next to the shootdowns on the official list (see above). So 3 unaccounted kills early in the war, one "made up" kill because ACOG people are careless or clueless and credited an F-105F crew with two separate aircraft, 0.5 extra kills because the ACOG people are too careless or clueless and did not note this as a shared kill. That's 27.5 my man. The cross-checking of records that people like ACOG do is inherently unreliable -- an aircraft damaged to the point where it cannot make it to the home base but does not immediately or obviously crash (i.e. it runs out of fuel) may be written off as "no credit" by the attackers (because it flew away) and "shot down" by the owners (because it didn't make it home due to combat damage). These reports are basically unverifiable. Considering that unlike India, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, and Luftwaffe, the USAF and VVS were pretty stringent about meeting criteria for kill credits, I trust the official numbers much more than some airheads at ACOG (3 gross mistakes in one short list, there goes my confidence). - Emt147 Burninate! 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK i shall inform them and see what they say, you make some interesting points (it may not be fair to blame them, it may be my misinterpretation of the list)....but that still leaves that matter of the VPAF kills, which have been published by the genlemen i have stated, i assume they researched them...

If they cannot provide references for their claims, their data does not belong on Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. Also, please sign your posts by writing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your messages, or better yet register. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I own the books...i have not registered as i do not edit, (i do not have the time currently and i am still trying to learn what Wikipedia is all about, until i am comfortable with that i do not believe it is my place to edit)80.2.196.76 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] five of first eleven lost July and August 1965

Perhaps 1965 is a typo; a sentence or so prior the introduction of the EF-105F is said to have occured in Jan 1966. moreover I was Bear with the first five to Takli that were lost. the loss date (if this is my event) was July-August 1966, not 65. --plumalley

Yes, it was a typo. Thanks for catching that! - Emt147 Burninate! 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THUD RIDGE

Second paragraph, last sentence, just above "combat": you are calling a mountain (thud ridge) to be a valley (the Red River Valley; Weird! As can be seen on Google Earth this mountain ridge is free standing mostly in the middle of the very large Red River Valley NW of Hanoi, anchored by a fighter base, now Hanoi International. the function of the ridge in low visibility is as a visual navigation point, check point, whatever visual radar/visual screening may be obtained. Anyway, a mountain is not a valley. plumalley

Must have been vandalism or ham-fisted editing that I somehow missed. Good pick up! - Emt147 Burninate! 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)