This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No. 1 Wing RAAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | No. 1 Wing RAAF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2017. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 6, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Royal Australian Air Force's
No. 1 Wing was often referred to as the 'Churchill Wing' because of
Winston Churchill's key role in its formation? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ian flagged me in the diff message about this, so I figured he wanted someone to take a look for you. Overall it looks good. I have a few picky suggestions
I've gone through and made some additional copy edits in the following section.
the lead needs expansion to expand the controversy of ratio of kills to losses. I'll get back to this a bit later. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says that: By this time, the wing had been credited with 63 confirmed 'kills' and a further 13 probably destroyed. In exchange, it had lost 44 aircraft, though only 17 were due to Japanese action
Frankly speaking, this is a wide exaggeration. All the sources i have indicates that Ki-43s shot down 2 Spitfire vs 1 loss, and the A6M shot down around 21 Spitfire vs only 3 (!) losses, atleast until the summer of 1943. How the numbers in wikipedia were manipulated to reach such level of 'success' is beyond my immagination. The 1 Wing RAAF is a subject well studied by only in Wikipedia you could find such optimistic values for its successes.
As example:
1- 2 march 1943: wiki states 4 japs losses, while i have only two (both by Caldwell)
2-15 march: wiki states 8 japs lost, while i have only 1 (one) japs. Zeros of 202 kokutai won.
3-2 may: wiki states 6-10 jap losses, but i have zero (0) losses, while RAAF lost 13-14 Spitfires (wiki states that 7 of them were repaired, i wonder if it is the case, as the reliability of Wikipedia in this case seems much to desire...)
4- 28-may: wiki says 3-1, while i have 3-2 for the RAAF.
5- 20 june: the biggest lie of all. Wiki says 14 kills for 2 Spitfire. The truth was that JAAF came with 18 Ki-21, 9 Ki-48 and 22 Ki-43-II. The japs had 1 Ki-21 and 1 Ki-43 lost, while the RAAF losses are confirmed.
6- 30 june: wiki says 6 bombers and 2 fighters. My sources says just 1 (one) G4M bomber was lost out 23 plus 27 A6Ms, and only at landing (when crashed). The RAAF losses matches with 6 shot down (but wiki says that 3 of them were lost for 'mishaps' or accidents, how not to believe this unusual rate of accident).
6- 6 july: of course wiki exaggerated claiming 9 kills for 7 losses for various causes. I have instead only 3 G4M (the overall formation was made of 22 G4M and 26 Zeros), and only 3 bombers were shot down, no Zero at all was lost. So even this was a victory for the Zero's despite the long range that they must fly to reach Australia, where the very short range Spit often exausted their fuel before landing...
7- the incursion of 11 november: wiki says 2 G4M but there was only one loss.
8- on the recce side, the 20 august only one of the 4 Ki-46 claimed was confirmed by japs.
9- the 7 september clash saw a Ki-46 escorted by Zeros, but the Spitfire, even being 48 in total, failed to breach the defense of 20 A6Ms, losing 3:1 the match against the Zeros, plus two damaged. What wiki says? 5:3 for the RAAF.
Apparently, it seems that wikipedia is relating to not checked sources about those engagements, taking for good about any claming made by RAAF. So, while the RAAF losses matched with my sources, the JAAF/JNAF are greatly inflated. Sadly to say, but still wikipedia have such parts in which nobody tries to extrapolate any serious fact cheking about the air operations, despite some others, like Bodenplatte are discussed ad nausea. I recommand much better research about those air operation over Australia, the argument is very interesting but the outcome propagandate by wikipedia is not credible or atleast, should be discussed, also becaus it's widely known how any AF in WWII made such large overclamings and RAAF surely did not fare any better than the other airforces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 22:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No. 1 Wing RAAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | No. 1 Wing RAAF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2017. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 6, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Royal Australian Air Force's
No. 1 Wing was often referred to as the 'Churchill Wing' because of
Winston Churchill's key role in its formation? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ian flagged me in the diff message about this, so I figured he wanted someone to take a look for you. Overall it looks good. I have a few picky suggestions
I've gone through and made some additional copy edits in the following section.
the lead needs expansion to expand the controversy of ratio of kills to losses. I'll get back to this a bit later. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says that: By this time, the wing had been credited with 63 confirmed 'kills' and a further 13 probably destroyed. In exchange, it had lost 44 aircraft, though only 17 were due to Japanese action
Frankly speaking, this is a wide exaggeration. All the sources i have indicates that Ki-43s shot down 2 Spitfire vs 1 loss, and the A6M shot down around 21 Spitfire vs only 3 (!) losses, atleast until the summer of 1943. How the numbers in wikipedia were manipulated to reach such level of 'success' is beyond my immagination. The 1 Wing RAAF is a subject well studied by only in Wikipedia you could find such optimistic values for its successes.
As example:
1- 2 march 1943: wiki states 4 japs losses, while i have only two (both by Caldwell)
2-15 march: wiki states 8 japs lost, while i have only 1 (one) japs. Zeros of 202 kokutai won.
3-2 may: wiki states 6-10 jap losses, but i have zero (0) losses, while RAAF lost 13-14 Spitfires (wiki states that 7 of them were repaired, i wonder if it is the case, as the reliability of Wikipedia in this case seems much to desire...)
4- 28-may: wiki says 3-1, while i have 3-2 for the RAAF.
5- 20 june: the biggest lie of all. Wiki says 14 kills for 2 Spitfire. The truth was that JAAF came with 18 Ki-21, 9 Ki-48 and 22 Ki-43-II. The japs had 1 Ki-21 and 1 Ki-43 lost, while the RAAF losses are confirmed.
6- 30 june: wiki says 6 bombers and 2 fighters. My sources says just 1 (one) G4M bomber was lost out 23 plus 27 A6Ms, and only at landing (when crashed). The RAAF losses matches with 6 shot down (but wiki says that 3 of them were lost for 'mishaps' or accidents, how not to believe this unusual rate of accident).
6- 6 july: of course wiki exaggerated claiming 9 kills for 7 losses for various causes. I have instead only 3 G4M (the overall formation was made of 22 G4M and 26 Zeros), and only 3 bombers were shot down, no Zero at all was lost. So even this was a victory for the Zero's despite the long range that they must fly to reach Australia, where the very short range Spit often exausted their fuel before landing...
7- the incursion of 11 november: wiki says 2 G4M but there was only one loss.
8- on the recce side, the 20 august only one of the 4 Ki-46 claimed was confirmed by japs.
9- the 7 september clash saw a Ki-46 escorted by Zeros, but the Spitfire, even being 48 in total, failed to breach the defense of 20 A6Ms, losing 3:1 the match against the Zeros, plus two damaged. What wiki says? 5:3 for the RAAF.
Apparently, it seems that wikipedia is relating to not checked sources about those engagements, taking for good about any claming made by RAAF. So, while the RAAF losses matched with my sources, the JAAF/JNAF are greatly inflated. Sadly to say, but still wikipedia have such parts in which nobody tries to extrapolate any serious fact cheking about the air operations, despite some others, like Bodenplatte are discussed ad nausea. I recommand much better research about those air operation over Australia, the argument is very interesting but the outcome propagandate by wikipedia is not credible or atleast, should be discussed, also becaus it's widely known how any AF in WWII made such large overclamings and RAAF surely did not fare any better than the other airforces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 22:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)