"This attack had been timed for when it was believed repairs to rectify the damage caused in Operation Tungsten were nearing completion" doesn't make sense, as it is describing Operation Tungsten. Is something missing?
suggest "series of subsequent aircraft carrier attacks were unsuccessful, including Operation Mascot on 17 July and Operation Goodwood between 22–29 August 1944."
was responsibility transferred from Bomber Command to RN then back to Bomber Command? If so, suggest stating this in the narrative
I haven't seen a source saying that there was an official transfer of responsibility for attacking the ship from the RAF to the RN in 1942/43 (as half-baked plans to attack the ship with bombers, including USAAF B-17s, kept being cooked up), but multiple sources say that such a transfer took place in 1944.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
suggest "Weber believed that within three weeks the days would be short enough to prevent further air attacks."
"A total of 32 Lancasters were dispatched" and two didn't make it in time, but in the lead it says 29 heavy bombers?
The force comprised 31 Lancasters operating as bombers (of which two failed to attack) and another Lancaster serving as film aircraft.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
"headed to the USSR" USSR hasn't been introduced, suggest sticking to Soviet Union
perhaps the way to deal with all this time stuff is to introduce BST in 24-hour clock rather than am/pm, then say local time was equivalent to BST (as you've done), then just use 24-hour clock thereafter?
"The loss of Tirpitz was a disaster for the German forces in northern Norway" seems a stretch given she wasn't capable to putting to sea, does anyone else say this?
Hinsley et al. and Zetterling et al. were consulted but not used?
I've used Zetterling this evening. From memory, Hinsley ran out of steam on the attack at about this point - removed.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
McMullen is listed in the infobox, but not mentioned in the body
Removed. I can't find a RS saying he commanded the attack force on the ground, though I think he did. Tait seems to have dominated this operation to a greater degree than he had the previous Lancaster attacks.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
suggest changing British airmen in the lead to Commonwealth airmen, as there were quite a few Canadian, Australian and New Zealand airmen in the two squadrons
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The lede lacks some context. Why is the Tirpitz a target? The second paragraph tells us that it's been attacked many times before but until the reader gets to Background it's a bit of a mystery.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
11:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
"This attack had been timed for when it was believed repairs to rectify the damage caused in Operation Tungsten were nearing completion" doesn't make sense, as it is describing Operation Tungsten. Is something missing?
suggest "series of subsequent aircraft carrier attacks were unsuccessful, including Operation Mascot on 17 July and Operation Goodwood between 22–29 August 1944."
was responsibility transferred from Bomber Command to RN then back to Bomber Command? If so, suggest stating this in the narrative
I haven't seen a source saying that there was an official transfer of responsibility for attacking the ship from the RAF to the RN in 1942/43 (as half-baked plans to attack the ship with bombers, including USAAF B-17s, kept being cooked up), but multiple sources say that such a transfer took place in 1944.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
suggest "Weber believed that within three weeks the days would be short enough to prevent further air attacks."
"A total of 32 Lancasters were dispatched" and two didn't make it in time, but in the lead it says 29 heavy bombers?
The force comprised 31 Lancasters operating as bombers (of which two failed to attack) and another Lancaster serving as film aircraft.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
"headed to the USSR" USSR hasn't been introduced, suggest sticking to Soviet Union
perhaps the way to deal with all this time stuff is to introduce BST in 24-hour clock rather than am/pm, then say local time was equivalent to BST (as you've done), then just use 24-hour clock thereafter?
"The loss of Tirpitz was a disaster for the German forces in northern Norway" seems a stretch given she wasn't capable to putting to sea, does anyone else say this?
Hinsley et al. and Zetterling et al. were consulted but not used?
I've used Zetterling this evening. From memory, Hinsley ran out of steam on the attack at about this point - removed.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
McMullen is listed in the infobox, but not mentioned in the body
Removed. I can't find a RS saying he commanded the attack force on the ground, though I think he did. Tait seems to have dominated this operation to a greater degree than he had the previous Lancaster attacks.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
suggest changing British airmen in the lead to Commonwealth airmen, as there were quite a few Canadian, Australian and New Zealand airmen in the two squadrons
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The lede lacks some context. Why is the Tirpitz a target? The second paragraph tells us that it's been attacked many times before but until the reader gets to Background it's a bit of a mystery.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
11:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply