This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Linebacker II 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 |
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 18, 2009, and December 18, 2011. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just checking in after a long sojourn (11 years or more, and obviously, not long enough). I am the original author of this monstrosity (and the attendant Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker One articles). All of the above were originally A class articles when last I saw them, but alas, the times they have been a' changin'. Rolling Thunder is still pretty much hanging in there, but that is to be expected, since it was going to be the most viewed (and edited). The Linebacker Ops - not so much so. That is why they are C class now. Intro was too short, a photo of NVN AAA batteries not attributed (like all of the maps and photos in every article I wrote for Wiki, it came from a US Government publication, where did they think it came from, Mars?). And this brings me to why (after 16 A class and at least 8 B class) I never I never bother write for Wiki any more. The best thing about Wiki is the worst thing about it. You can do the research, argue with other overprotective editors, hump your ass off writing the articles, and finally get the monster done only to find out that some bozo hacked your work into garbage one week later. Or, thanks to new rules and regs, your A class article is now a C class article because some other bozo doesn't know shit from Shinola.-RM Gillespie
Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail. "nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail" This is not appropriate language for an Encyclopedia, nor is it sourced. Specifically "endless stream of supplies...". Literally endless, or... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.5.169 ( talk) 04:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why do people think Operation Linebacker II forced North Vietnam to agree to all terms of the Paris Peace Treaty? Is there any proof to this? The US agreed to let the NVA remained in South Vietnam so the DRV was not "forced". The only thing that forces the leaders of Hanoi to agree to the Peace Treaty was the civilian casualties inflicted by American B-52s.
29-18 = 11, yet "only" 11 days, and "halted on Christmas." Is this supposed to be funny? - St| eve 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice math, dude. Now go back and count from 18 to 29, skipping 25, and see how many days you end up with total. I got a hunch it's gonna be 11.
SAC figures actually show only 15 B-52's lost. Call signs for total campaign losses can be found in the offical USAF Archives.
Also the timing of events and condition of the North Vietnamese Air Defence network would indicate Linebacker II forced North Vietnam back to the peace talks. Otherwise they would have been at the full mercy of the USAF. They had little alternative.
I corrected most of the above and organized the rest. The bombings were known as the "Christmas bombings" (for the season), not "Christmas Day bombings". The figure of 15 lost is correct--as indicated above, each loss can be accounted for by their literally colorful call signs (such as "Scarlet 1"), by date and time, and by identification of their crewmembers captured, killed, and missing. While I agree with the opinion about the helplessness of Hanoi at the end of the 11 days, I made reference to "differing opinions" in the reactions section. Buckboard 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The bombings are much more known as the Christmas bombings, ([ [1]] compared with [ [2]]). Hardly anyone outside of the US knows the names of American military operations. I propose we move the article to Christmas bombings of Hanoi, or just Christmas bombings. -- Merat 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply because the article should have the most suitable name, which I don't think "Operation Linebacker II" is. If anyone disagrees with renaming then give me reasonable arguments, please. -- Merat 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Two wrongs doesn't make it a right, same applies with three wrongs. I ask again, does anyone oppose renaming? -- Merat 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Other Wikipedia pages doesn't convince me at all, as Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. What three wikipedian authours have named it isn't important as the Christmas bombings still is the most used name for this event. What they name it in other languages is completely uninteresting, as we should make the naming decision independently. Whether the name should stay or not is not your own decision. This article is not yours. -- Merat 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I would propose 1. NOT redirecting "Christmas Bombings" here and let it be a related but separate article, and 2. Adding the normal External links section at the bottom, so as to make it possible to broaden the scope of this American war event to worldwide reactions to it together with articles published in magazines at the time this event was carried out. Johannjs 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
General military histories may use generic titles like "the Christmas bombing" to describe military actions, but specific histories utilize the names of operations to identify the campaigns. This website aspires to be more specific, not generalist, and "Linebacker II" is appropriate as an article name, delineating it from, say, Linebacker I or Rolling Thunder. "Christmas bombings" could apply to actions of a wide variety of natures, anywhere in the world - it could be terrorist activities, or Irish Republican Army incidents, or...? By titling articles with their exact names, we strive for specificity here, not the coffee-table book cutline generalist approach. Writing these articles is not about YOU - we're writing for the general edification of the readers, and accuracy is key.
Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This may come as a suprise for you, but there is no "exact name". If you think the exact name for war events, such as this, is what the American military gives them then you have a grave American POV. Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. There is a reason why it's not named "Operation Iraqi Freedom". And please refrain from dragging me personally into this. -- Merat 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are totally missing my point. Just because the US military decided to invade Iraq doesn't mean that their name for the war is the "correct" name. Do you disagree with that? I think that the "correct", or in better words, most suitable name for an article about an event should be the most commonly used name, in this case "Christmas bombings". -- Merat 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Christmas Bombings - - - Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!! Mark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Outside of the US military I think it's the most commonly used name for the bombings. Web hits is rather even. [3], [4]. -- Merat 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's suitable to make this look like some sort of battle. -- Merat 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
With little combat and a large part of the casualties being civilians, I just find it unappetizing with battle infoboxes. I feel that it is a try to make the bombings seem more legitime. Compare with the articles on the bombings of Guernica[ [5]] and Dresden[ [6]]. I would find battle infoboxes very malplaced and quite insensitive there as well. -- Merat 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Dresden bombings were carried out over a few days too, though I don't see why that would matter... "All military in nature"? Railroads and harbours (and at least one hospital). You may or may not find them "legitimate targets", but calling them military targets is downright wrong. I don't think the Dresden bombings were "terror bombings designed to kill civilians" either, but they were carried out with little respect of human life, like this one. -- Merat 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
First, please refrain from personal attacks if you are able to. I repeat, there is a diffrence between military targets (a military unit, for example) and legitimate targets (railroads, for example). I also repeat my standpoint that a a battlebox is not appropriate for a mass killing (from my POV) of 1600+ civilians, whether deliberate or not. -- Merat 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy, howdy! I am just amazed at the "military" target versus "legitimate" target comment. In whose estimation? If the military selects a target, what are your criteria for defining it as "legitimate" or "military". This is an argument about semantics - not strategy.
And by the way, with family who fought on the side of the late Confederacy, I call it the Battle of Sharpsburg, while others prefer the Battle of Antietam. But the victors always get to write the history... Mark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This site [ [7]] claims that 1,318 people were killed in Hanoi and 306 in Haiphong. I'll use these numbers instead. -- Merat 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"These claims, however, bear little resemblance to the truth, since both sides had proclaimed their willingness to continue. The goal of President Nixon was not to convince Hanoi, but to convince Saigon. President Thieu had to be convinced that "whatever the formal wording of the cease-fire agreement, he could count on Nixon to come to the defense of South Vietnam if the DRV broke the cease-fire."[22]"
The preponderance of historical opinion, Ambrose aside, agrees that the North Vietnamese had no intention of coming to an agreement before Congress convened. In light of this, surely this statement is a bit strong? I will update this section, making use of Pierre Asselin's work, which makes great use of Vietnamese sources to analyze Hanoi's negotiating stance. Cripipper 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited the summary box, removing "although, it forced North Vietnam to negotiate a peace treaty". I believe some American editors on Wikipedia should stop being so one-sided and stop turning everything into an American "victory". If memory serves me right it was the United States that wanted to go to the negotiating table following the Tet Offensive of 1968. And North Vietnam was not "forced" as the terms of the Paris Treaty was not entirely Amercan, as noted above, many North Vietnamese troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam under the terms of the treaty. Canpark 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
gentlemen, a side topic: please remember that is was not "America" which was involved in vietnam, but the USA. although it is propably a global custom to mix these 2 entities, it is unfair to either of them. unfair to the canadian, mexican, cuban, brasilian ..., and to the US as well. Sinzov 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thx for your kind words. as we both said, it is a gobal custom ... but where does it come from ? just think about sentences like "H. Chavez is feeding anti-americam sentiments" (Chavez has indian ancestors, so he is indeed american), think about germans occupying "european" for themselves, think about the usurpation of terms as an important part of manipulation, think about another universally known, very specific and unique adjective applied to the USA, "yankee", which you probably will not accept as being appropriate - think about it, and you will get the point. Sinzov 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
why did the usa bomb an already devasted 3rd world country at the very moment the usa tried to get out of the war ? the answers given are not really satisfying. to convince Thieu ? he and his government were by all means a puppet regime. to bomb north vietnam to the tables ? the peace accord was more or less the same in january 1973 as it was in nov. 1972. the north vietnamese have a different point of view, and it deserves to be mentioned in the article as well. they speak of an "arial dien bien phu". they think that the usa tried to bomb them into submission and that they won this last battle against the usa. many historians think that one of the most important objectives of the bombing was to inflict as much damage as possible in order to deny the fruits of the victory to the vietnamese by making a recovery a very long and painful process, thus "warning" other insurgent people not to wage an uprising. simple deterrence against national liberation ideas. a theory which at least should be considered. Sinzov 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Rolling Thunder, while a flawed program, was not the sterile -- and strictly legal -- campaign you think it is.
"The journey showed that five cities had been leveled. These, traveling south, were the cities of Phu Ly, Ninh Binh, Thanh Hoa, Vinh and Ha Tinh, each formerly with populations between 10,000 and 30,000. The North's third largest city, Nam Dinh -- population 90,000 -- was largely destroyed but at least recognizable. Another eighteen destroyed centers were classified as towns -- but though the place names checked on the map, it was now impossible to know what these collections of overgrown debris had once been like."
Maclear's _The Ten Thousand Day War_ , describing a tour of NVN in 1969.
Using "only 1,624 civilians" in the final line of Conclusion seems not appropriate. With predictable bombing timetable and a short period of 11 days, that's quite a high amount. Then it's not like a bombing within a residential area required many deaths to be one. This's not an attempt to debate about "how evil US imperialists are" since we all knows it's against US's policy to kill civilians. It's more about: whether US's government was in a position where only absolute (or near-absolute) accurate bombing are allowed. Undergoldstar ( talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.[73]" - I do not quite see the "although". As pointed out above by Uawe:Undergoldstar, the two statements are not in contradiction with each other. We must also see whether there are critical studies on the figure of 1,624 civilians; it may be a low count issued during the war to prop up civilian morale. Feketekave ( talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There was much done simultaneously by Task Force 77 Surface Warfare ships to interdict supply lines along Highway One in North Vietnam. My ship, the USS Lawrence, per her Deck Logs....
USS Lawrence DDG-4 reported as an element of TU 77.1.1 on 21 December 1972, [in effect relieving the Goldsborough who was hit by shore batteries the night before].
During this period through 30 December, Lawrence was flagship for COMDESRON 11. Eighteen (18)
Linebacker strikes were conducted, expending 1,089 rounds against primary targets and 296 rounds of counter-battery fire against enemy coastal defense gun sites. During this period enemy fire was heavy and accurate.
Lawrence was under enemy fire for a total of 123 minutes with 388 rounds
of enemy fire falling in the immediate vicinity with some air bursts and surface bursts as close as 10 yards.
As many as 35 other ships participated in similar strikes.
The Secretary of the Navy takes pleasure in presenting the Meritorious Unit Commendation to USS LAWRENCE (DDG-4) CITATION: For meritorious service during operations against enemy forces in Southeast Asia from 7 August 1972 to 10 January 1973. Upon assignment to the US SEVENTH Fleet in support of United States objectives in Southeast Asia, USS LAWRENCE consistently displayed a high degree of professionalism and resourcefulness while carrying out arduous combat support missions along the coast of the Republic of Vietnam and 116 high speed strike missions against North Vietnam. During this period, USS LAWRENCE damaged or destroyed significant enemy fortifications and logistic support facilities. The sustained high level of personnel and material readiness achieved by LAWRENCE enabled her to respond instantly to every commitment ranging from pilot rescue to emergency naval gunfire support. By the exemplary performance of duty throughout this period, the officers and men of the USS LAWRENCE reflected great credit upon themselves and the United States Naval Service.
John W. Warner Secretary of the Navy —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDT71 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the planes sits in Huu Tiep Lake in Ha Noi, Vietnam. Pictures are available because the B-52 bomber still sits there today in the middle of the lake. Perhaps a small article on this would be nice. Lukeduk1980 ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this sentence defies the neutral point of view policy: "Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing."
I suggest we remove the word "only", replace the "Hanoi" with "Noth Vietnamese" and split this sentence into two separate ones like this:
1) The North Vietnamese criticized the operation stating that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people". 2) The North Vietnamese government claimed that 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.
This way we retain all the information contained in this paragraph, but avoid making any political judgement, thus keping in line with the neutral viewpoint policy. We quote the north vietnamese statement, while at the same time making it clear that this is precisely just that - a North Vietnamese account of said events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Klave ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In the paragraph it was said that 3 planes were lost to AAA fire but in the table none seem to be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.250 ( talk) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I know this is rehashing, but the title of this article should be renamed to a commonly recognizable title ( WP:Title). Linebacker II is far too obscure. Hardly anybody outside of the US military would recognize this title - and I own a few Vietnam military histories that don't use it. A quick search on Google books yields some 560 with Operation Linebacker II, practically 100% of them highly specialized military books (and the bulk of them narrowly air force-related). Whereas a search for "Christmas Bombings" yields sevenfold times as much. I don't have problems with Rolling Thunder, etc. - those names are well-known. But Linebacker II is far too obscure, and the Christmas bombings far too well known. Walrasiad ( talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, my comment is directed more about familiarity of people outside the military, i.e. general audience. I am in the United States, and a quick (highly unscientific) survey of a handful of acquaintances confirmed that nobody had ever heard of this, although they all heard of the Christmas bombings. Another quick check, looking up Henry Kissinger's own memoirs "Ending the War", it is refererred to repeatedly only as the Christmas bombings, never Linebacker II. It's simply the name by which this event is commonly known, both here and abroad. - Walrasiad ( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The text says "Although an 20 SAMs" - should that read "Although an estimated 20 SAMs" ? I can't make the edit myself as I don't know the original intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 ( talk) 08:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Nixon could implement the "12 days of Christmas" bombing campaign because (1) he had handily been re-elected; (2) the draft had ended so student protests were rare (young men protested because they didn't want to die, not because there was a war); (3) the new Congress had not convened yet; and (4) it was Christmas break so college campuses were empty and could not mount student protests. The 36 hour break over Xmas day provided the Air Force much needed time to do maintenance on the airplanes, which were very high maintenance since they were high performance aircraft (an F-105 engine had to be gone over every 125 flying hours, for instance). My squadron, the 561st TFS flying F-105G Wild Weasels, participated in Linebacker I and II; we initially sent over 12 aircraft when Giap invaded the South with 200,000 troops, we killed 40,000 of them and four of our F-105G's got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in Vietnam. We won the Vietnam War, we brought the North to its knees in just a dozen days; however we knew the South couldn't make it without our help because they were so corrupt; we also knew the North would not keep its end of the bargain because Communists lie as a matter of standard policy. Our mission had been accomplished, however, we kept Communism from spreading out over all of Southeast Asia, we stood our ground and let Red China and the USSR know that the USA would stand up to Communism. That was the real war--between the USA, Russia and China; Vietnam was just a proxy war. The Vietnamese were just the poor dumb suckers that got caught in the middle. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:BC32:3559:365:9917 ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bombing resumed Jan 2, the January bombing was condemned by 40 nations at the UN and even the Parliament of Canada, American interests were attacked in Europe during this time, and it finally stopped on Jan 15, 1973 when Nixon said progress was being made in the Peace talks. Where is this mentioned?! Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, as part of a quick review of old Milhist A-class articles, I have noticed that this article currently doesn't meet the project's referencing requirements for its A-class articles. As such, I have marked these in the places where I think they are needed. I also think that the tables of US aircraft losses and the order of battle need references. Is anyone able to add references in these places? If not, I intend to nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is scant mention of what was destroyed, how many people and who were killed, how Vietnamese (and other neighbouring nations) are affected, etc. There are fancy tables about the lost aircraft, and none about the patients, medics, people in the street, soldiers, who were killed by them.
The whole article implicit lauds the US military by being very unbalanced.
Zezen ( talk) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so i cut out the following sentences out of the article: "In the end, the Operation Linebacker II missions allowed the United States Air Force to fully unleash it's power. Where prior operations against North Vietnam, such as "Operation Rolling Thunder" during the Johnson presidency, had been discontinued, the results in 11 days of the Operation Linebacker II bombing missions were different. Less than one month later, all sides signed off on the Paris Peace Accords and formally ended the war." This was mostly on the bases that this is a rather strong statement for which i would like a source, since this is also implying that the only reason for previous failures of bombing campaigns were simply US-political concerns. This is an..."interesting" perspective for sure, if one considers the ammount of bombs the US dropped during their engagments in Vietnam. Its not like the US wasn´t bombing North Vietnam quite heavely already. So yeah. I want a source for the claim that this operation was not only someway different then before (it was not like this was the first massive bombardment of north-vietnamese infrastructure), but also the reason why the peace-treaty was signed. Maybe, just maybe the accords were signed, because the North had already won?
If you make such a statement, i want a source for that.
And if the argument for keeping in this random, off hand comment is: "they US "lost" the war because they trusted Communists to keep their word, but that irrelevant", then iam not seeing the logic here. I´ll keep this mentioned part out of this article until someone gives me some logical arguments to keep it. -- Aradir ( talk) 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello,Dear Bumbubookworm, a while back I added some missing information to the page regarding the firebee UAV usage. It was removed by you saying it was Hearsay. Sir, this is not hearsay. My grandfather, LT COL Harold "Red" Smith was in charge of that operation, Deputy Chief of the RPV sector at SAC. The information I posted is from his book that we are working to get published. How can I properly cite this information so it is added to this page? Many people do not know about UAV use during Vietnam, UAV sorties were flown EVERYDAY during the Vietnam war. Here was my original edit that I tried to add to the article, it is important that this is added as hardly anybody knows of the importance that UAV's played in this war.
"BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) was only performed by the LIGHTNING BUG drone reconnaissance program. LIGHTNING BUG provided daily photo reconnaissance throughout the 11 year campaign. Highlights included the " Model 147E" capture of the SA-2 control frequencies dropping USAF/ US NAVY losses from 7% to 2% of sorties flown saving significant numbers of aircrafts and crews from death and/or capture! ALSO- LIGHTNING BUG was the only system capable of taking BDA photos during LINEBACKER II to assure target data for the B-52's!"
Please advise so we can rectify this matter. Thank you! Marshall Smith Aviation Unmanned Vehicle Museum (AUVM Dallas, TX www.auvm.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mts6789 ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello to all. I am surprised to read in the very first sentence : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77... Operation Linebacker II was in fact conducted by the Eighth Air Force, which was at that time a component of Strategic Air Command (SAC). The Seventh Air Force and the Seventh Fleet both played a very important, but supporting role during the B-52s night missions. This point is important since 8th Air Force (and SAC) were independant from the rest of the US chain of command for Vietnam (CINCPAC, MACVN etc.). Also some authors (Michel for example) have emphasized the problems with the centralized - out of theater - leadership exercised by SAC, especially during for the first days of the operation.
The table: United States Air Force – Seventh Air Force in the paragraph: U.S. air order of battle is also wrong and should be corrected.
I can modify the article but since English is not my mother tongue, I feel another editor would make a better job of it.
Regards, Domenjod Domenjod ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference you sent me (To Hanoï and back). It's very good and...confirms what I wrote. I haven't finished reading it yet but, as I wonder if YOU have read it at all, let me quote a few parts of it for your benefit:
Shall I continue? Well, you can argue about wording and say that I should have mentioned SAC rather than Eighth Air Force (which was a component of SAC and, like SAC, was in a different chain of command from CINCPAC/PACAF) but this is embarassing...As you and I are both dedicated WP contributors, I think we cannot let this article mention - as it still does - that : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77...without mentionning even once SAC and 8th Air Force. Remember: they dropped almost 90% of the bomb tonnage in this one...not to mention their human losses... To be fair, I also need to correct the sentence I wrote above about the role of 7th AF and 7th FLT during Linebacker II since they both made a significant contribution independantly of the B-52s DURING DAY TIME, besides supporting them during their night missions. I have added the correction in bold letters so that there is no doubt that it is not part of my original contribution.
Hello everyone. Further to the previous section, I would like to point out that, in my view, the article is VERY GOOD, with excellent sources. Of course, any article - including this one - car be improved. Here are the two areas where I see a need for improvement :
There are obviously other improvements that can be made in the article (source comments etc.) but, as far as I am concerned, I intend to focus first on the two above-mentionned points. Regards, -- Domenjod ( talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
-- Domenjod ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Any reader of this thread will notice your answer to my questions :
Any reader of this thread will also notice how long it took you to accept even a very minimal, basic, change (mentioning SAC/8th Air force in the lead section) that anyone who can read would have accepted immediately. Now, what seems to be your standard excuse (my "condescending tone") is not convincing and, as you know full well, the "consensus" you mention is very weak with only two persons - you and me - communicating so far. As I am busy doing other things right now, I'll get back on this topic in a few days. -- Domenjod ( talk) 12:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have the names of the people who are in this photo? 216.71.102.197 ( talk) 23:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Linebacker II 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 |
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 18, 2009, and December 18, 2011. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just checking in after a long sojourn (11 years or more, and obviously, not long enough). I am the original author of this monstrosity (and the attendant Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker One articles). All of the above were originally A class articles when last I saw them, but alas, the times they have been a' changin'. Rolling Thunder is still pretty much hanging in there, but that is to be expected, since it was going to be the most viewed (and edited). The Linebacker Ops - not so much so. That is why they are C class now. Intro was too short, a photo of NVN AAA batteries not attributed (like all of the maps and photos in every article I wrote for Wiki, it came from a US Government publication, where did they think it came from, Mars?). And this brings me to why (after 16 A class and at least 8 B class) I never I never bother write for Wiki any more. The best thing about Wiki is the worst thing about it. You can do the research, argue with other overprotective editors, hump your ass off writing the articles, and finally get the monster done only to find out that some bozo hacked your work into garbage one week later. Or, thanks to new rules and regs, your A class article is now a C class article because some other bozo doesn't know shit from Shinola.-RM Gillespie
Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail. "nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail" This is not appropriate language for an Encyclopedia, nor is it sourced. Specifically "endless stream of supplies...". Literally endless, or... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.5.169 ( talk) 04:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why do people think Operation Linebacker II forced North Vietnam to agree to all terms of the Paris Peace Treaty? Is there any proof to this? The US agreed to let the NVA remained in South Vietnam so the DRV was not "forced". The only thing that forces the leaders of Hanoi to agree to the Peace Treaty was the civilian casualties inflicted by American B-52s.
29-18 = 11, yet "only" 11 days, and "halted on Christmas." Is this supposed to be funny? - St| eve 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice math, dude. Now go back and count from 18 to 29, skipping 25, and see how many days you end up with total. I got a hunch it's gonna be 11.
SAC figures actually show only 15 B-52's lost. Call signs for total campaign losses can be found in the offical USAF Archives.
Also the timing of events and condition of the North Vietnamese Air Defence network would indicate Linebacker II forced North Vietnam back to the peace talks. Otherwise they would have been at the full mercy of the USAF. They had little alternative.
I corrected most of the above and organized the rest. The bombings were known as the "Christmas bombings" (for the season), not "Christmas Day bombings". The figure of 15 lost is correct--as indicated above, each loss can be accounted for by their literally colorful call signs (such as "Scarlet 1"), by date and time, and by identification of their crewmembers captured, killed, and missing. While I agree with the opinion about the helplessness of Hanoi at the end of the 11 days, I made reference to "differing opinions" in the reactions section. Buckboard 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The bombings are much more known as the Christmas bombings, ([ [1]] compared with [ [2]]). Hardly anyone outside of the US knows the names of American military operations. I propose we move the article to Christmas bombings of Hanoi, or just Christmas bombings. -- Merat 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply because the article should have the most suitable name, which I don't think "Operation Linebacker II" is. If anyone disagrees with renaming then give me reasonable arguments, please. -- Merat 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Two wrongs doesn't make it a right, same applies with three wrongs. I ask again, does anyone oppose renaming? -- Merat 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Other Wikipedia pages doesn't convince me at all, as Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. What three wikipedian authours have named it isn't important as the Christmas bombings still is the most used name for this event. What they name it in other languages is completely uninteresting, as we should make the naming decision independently. Whether the name should stay or not is not your own decision. This article is not yours. -- Merat 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I would propose 1. NOT redirecting "Christmas Bombings" here and let it be a related but separate article, and 2. Adding the normal External links section at the bottom, so as to make it possible to broaden the scope of this American war event to worldwide reactions to it together with articles published in magazines at the time this event was carried out. Johannjs 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
General military histories may use generic titles like "the Christmas bombing" to describe military actions, but specific histories utilize the names of operations to identify the campaigns. This website aspires to be more specific, not generalist, and "Linebacker II" is appropriate as an article name, delineating it from, say, Linebacker I or Rolling Thunder. "Christmas bombings" could apply to actions of a wide variety of natures, anywhere in the world - it could be terrorist activities, or Irish Republican Army incidents, or...? By titling articles with their exact names, we strive for specificity here, not the coffee-table book cutline generalist approach. Writing these articles is not about YOU - we're writing for the general edification of the readers, and accuracy is key.
Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This may come as a suprise for you, but there is no "exact name". If you think the exact name for war events, such as this, is what the American military gives them then you have a grave American POV. Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. There is a reason why it's not named "Operation Iraqi Freedom". And please refrain from dragging me personally into this. -- Merat 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are totally missing my point. Just because the US military decided to invade Iraq doesn't mean that their name for the war is the "correct" name. Do you disagree with that? I think that the "correct", or in better words, most suitable name for an article about an event should be the most commonly used name, in this case "Christmas bombings". -- Merat 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Christmas Bombings - - - Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!! Mark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Outside of the US military I think it's the most commonly used name for the bombings. Web hits is rather even. [3], [4]. -- Merat 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's suitable to make this look like some sort of battle. -- Merat 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
With little combat and a large part of the casualties being civilians, I just find it unappetizing with battle infoboxes. I feel that it is a try to make the bombings seem more legitime. Compare with the articles on the bombings of Guernica[ [5]] and Dresden[ [6]]. I would find battle infoboxes very malplaced and quite insensitive there as well. -- Merat 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Dresden bombings were carried out over a few days too, though I don't see why that would matter... "All military in nature"? Railroads and harbours (and at least one hospital). You may or may not find them "legitimate targets", but calling them military targets is downright wrong. I don't think the Dresden bombings were "terror bombings designed to kill civilians" either, but they were carried out with little respect of human life, like this one. -- Merat 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
First, please refrain from personal attacks if you are able to. I repeat, there is a diffrence between military targets (a military unit, for example) and legitimate targets (railroads, for example). I also repeat my standpoint that a a battlebox is not appropriate for a mass killing (from my POV) of 1600+ civilians, whether deliberate or not. -- Merat 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy, howdy! I am just amazed at the "military" target versus "legitimate" target comment. In whose estimation? If the military selects a target, what are your criteria for defining it as "legitimate" or "military". This is an argument about semantics - not strategy.
And by the way, with family who fought on the side of the late Confederacy, I call it the Battle of Sharpsburg, while others prefer the Battle of Antietam. But the victors always get to write the history... Mark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This site [ [7]] claims that 1,318 people were killed in Hanoi and 306 in Haiphong. I'll use these numbers instead. -- Merat 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"These claims, however, bear little resemblance to the truth, since both sides had proclaimed their willingness to continue. The goal of President Nixon was not to convince Hanoi, but to convince Saigon. President Thieu had to be convinced that "whatever the formal wording of the cease-fire agreement, he could count on Nixon to come to the defense of South Vietnam if the DRV broke the cease-fire."[22]"
The preponderance of historical opinion, Ambrose aside, agrees that the North Vietnamese had no intention of coming to an agreement before Congress convened. In light of this, surely this statement is a bit strong? I will update this section, making use of Pierre Asselin's work, which makes great use of Vietnamese sources to analyze Hanoi's negotiating stance. Cripipper 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited the summary box, removing "although, it forced North Vietnam to negotiate a peace treaty". I believe some American editors on Wikipedia should stop being so one-sided and stop turning everything into an American "victory". If memory serves me right it was the United States that wanted to go to the negotiating table following the Tet Offensive of 1968. And North Vietnam was not "forced" as the terms of the Paris Treaty was not entirely Amercan, as noted above, many North Vietnamese troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam under the terms of the treaty. Canpark 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
gentlemen, a side topic: please remember that is was not "America" which was involved in vietnam, but the USA. although it is propably a global custom to mix these 2 entities, it is unfair to either of them. unfair to the canadian, mexican, cuban, brasilian ..., and to the US as well. Sinzov 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thx for your kind words. as we both said, it is a gobal custom ... but where does it come from ? just think about sentences like "H. Chavez is feeding anti-americam sentiments" (Chavez has indian ancestors, so he is indeed american), think about germans occupying "european" for themselves, think about the usurpation of terms as an important part of manipulation, think about another universally known, very specific and unique adjective applied to the USA, "yankee", which you probably will not accept as being appropriate - think about it, and you will get the point. Sinzov 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
why did the usa bomb an already devasted 3rd world country at the very moment the usa tried to get out of the war ? the answers given are not really satisfying. to convince Thieu ? he and his government were by all means a puppet regime. to bomb north vietnam to the tables ? the peace accord was more or less the same in january 1973 as it was in nov. 1972. the north vietnamese have a different point of view, and it deserves to be mentioned in the article as well. they speak of an "arial dien bien phu". they think that the usa tried to bomb them into submission and that they won this last battle against the usa. many historians think that one of the most important objectives of the bombing was to inflict as much damage as possible in order to deny the fruits of the victory to the vietnamese by making a recovery a very long and painful process, thus "warning" other insurgent people not to wage an uprising. simple deterrence against national liberation ideas. a theory which at least should be considered. Sinzov 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Rolling Thunder, while a flawed program, was not the sterile -- and strictly legal -- campaign you think it is.
"The journey showed that five cities had been leveled. These, traveling south, were the cities of Phu Ly, Ninh Binh, Thanh Hoa, Vinh and Ha Tinh, each formerly with populations between 10,000 and 30,000. The North's third largest city, Nam Dinh -- population 90,000 -- was largely destroyed but at least recognizable. Another eighteen destroyed centers were classified as towns -- but though the place names checked on the map, it was now impossible to know what these collections of overgrown debris had once been like."
Maclear's _The Ten Thousand Day War_ , describing a tour of NVN in 1969.
Using "only 1,624 civilians" in the final line of Conclusion seems not appropriate. With predictable bombing timetable and a short period of 11 days, that's quite a high amount. Then it's not like a bombing within a residential area required many deaths to be one. This's not an attempt to debate about "how evil US imperialists are" since we all knows it's against US's policy to kill civilians. It's more about: whether US's government was in a position where only absolute (or near-absolute) accurate bombing are allowed. Undergoldstar ( talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.[73]" - I do not quite see the "although". As pointed out above by Uawe:Undergoldstar, the two statements are not in contradiction with each other. We must also see whether there are critical studies on the figure of 1,624 civilians; it may be a low count issued during the war to prop up civilian morale. Feketekave ( talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There was much done simultaneously by Task Force 77 Surface Warfare ships to interdict supply lines along Highway One in North Vietnam. My ship, the USS Lawrence, per her Deck Logs....
USS Lawrence DDG-4 reported as an element of TU 77.1.1 on 21 December 1972, [in effect relieving the Goldsborough who was hit by shore batteries the night before].
During this period through 30 December, Lawrence was flagship for COMDESRON 11. Eighteen (18)
Linebacker strikes were conducted, expending 1,089 rounds against primary targets and 296 rounds of counter-battery fire against enemy coastal defense gun sites. During this period enemy fire was heavy and accurate.
Lawrence was under enemy fire for a total of 123 minutes with 388 rounds
of enemy fire falling in the immediate vicinity with some air bursts and surface bursts as close as 10 yards.
As many as 35 other ships participated in similar strikes.
The Secretary of the Navy takes pleasure in presenting the Meritorious Unit Commendation to USS LAWRENCE (DDG-4) CITATION: For meritorious service during operations against enemy forces in Southeast Asia from 7 August 1972 to 10 January 1973. Upon assignment to the US SEVENTH Fleet in support of United States objectives in Southeast Asia, USS LAWRENCE consistently displayed a high degree of professionalism and resourcefulness while carrying out arduous combat support missions along the coast of the Republic of Vietnam and 116 high speed strike missions against North Vietnam. During this period, USS LAWRENCE damaged or destroyed significant enemy fortifications and logistic support facilities. The sustained high level of personnel and material readiness achieved by LAWRENCE enabled her to respond instantly to every commitment ranging from pilot rescue to emergency naval gunfire support. By the exemplary performance of duty throughout this period, the officers and men of the USS LAWRENCE reflected great credit upon themselves and the United States Naval Service.
John W. Warner Secretary of the Navy —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDT71 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the planes sits in Huu Tiep Lake in Ha Noi, Vietnam. Pictures are available because the B-52 bomber still sits there today in the middle of the lake. Perhaps a small article on this would be nice. Lukeduk1980 ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this sentence defies the neutral point of view policy: "Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing."
I suggest we remove the word "only", replace the "Hanoi" with "Noth Vietnamese" and split this sentence into two separate ones like this:
1) The North Vietnamese criticized the operation stating that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people". 2) The North Vietnamese government claimed that 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.
This way we retain all the information contained in this paragraph, but avoid making any political judgement, thus keping in line with the neutral viewpoint policy. We quote the north vietnamese statement, while at the same time making it clear that this is precisely just that - a North Vietnamese account of said events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Klave ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In the paragraph it was said that 3 planes were lost to AAA fire but in the table none seem to be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.250 ( talk) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I know this is rehashing, but the title of this article should be renamed to a commonly recognizable title ( WP:Title). Linebacker II is far too obscure. Hardly anybody outside of the US military would recognize this title - and I own a few Vietnam military histories that don't use it. A quick search on Google books yields some 560 with Operation Linebacker II, practically 100% of them highly specialized military books (and the bulk of them narrowly air force-related). Whereas a search for "Christmas Bombings" yields sevenfold times as much. I don't have problems with Rolling Thunder, etc. - those names are well-known. But Linebacker II is far too obscure, and the Christmas bombings far too well known. Walrasiad ( talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, my comment is directed more about familiarity of people outside the military, i.e. general audience. I am in the United States, and a quick (highly unscientific) survey of a handful of acquaintances confirmed that nobody had ever heard of this, although they all heard of the Christmas bombings. Another quick check, looking up Henry Kissinger's own memoirs "Ending the War", it is refererred to repeatedly only as the Christmas bombings, never Linebacker II. It's simply the name by which this event is commonly known, both here and abroad. - Walrasiad ( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The text says "Although an 20 SAMs" - should that read "Although an estimated 20 SAMs" ? I can't make the edit myself as I don't know the original intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 ( talk) 08:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Nixon could implement the "12 days of Christmas" bombing campaign because (1) he had handily been re-elected; (2) the draft had ended so student protests were rare (young men protested because they didn't want to die, not because there was a war); (3) the new Congress had not convened yet; and (4) it was Christmas break so college campuses were empty and could not mount student protests. The 36 hour break over Xmas day provided the Air Force much needed time to do maintenance on the airplanes, which were very high maintenance since they were high performance aircraft (an F-105 engine had to be gone over every 125 flying hours, for instance). My squadron, the 561st TFS flying F-105G Wild Weasels, participated in Linebacker I and II; we initially sent over 12 aircraft when Giap invaded the South with 200,000 troops, we killed 40,000 of them and four of our F-105G's got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in Vietnam. We won the Vietnam War, we brought the North to its knees in just a dozen days; however we knew the South couldn't make it without our help because they were so corrupt; we also knew the North would not keep its end of the bargain because Communists lie as a matter of standard policy. Our mission had been accomplished, however, we kept Communism from spreading out over all of Southeast Asia, we stood our ground and let Red China and the USSR know that the USA would stand up to Communism. That was the real war--between the USA, Russia and China; Vietnam was just a proxy war. The Vietnamese were just the poor dumb suckers that got caught in the middle. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:BC32:3559:365:9917 ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bombing resumed Jan 2, the January bombing was condemned by 40 nations at the UN and even the Parliament of Canada, American interests were attacked in Europe during this time, and it finally stopped on Jan 15, 1973 when Nixon said progress was being made in the Peace talks. Where is this mentioned?! Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, as part of a quick review of old Milhist A-class articles, I have noticed that this article currently doesn't meet the project's referencing requirements for its A-class articles. As such, I have marked these in the places where I think they are needed. I also think that the tables of US aircraft losses and the order of battle need references. Is anyone able to add references in these places? If not, I intend to nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is scant mention of what was destroyed, how many people and who were killed, how Vietnamese (and other neighbouring nations) are affected, etc. There are fancy tables about the lost aircraft, and none about the patients, medics, people in the street, soldiers, who were killed by them.
The whole article implicit lauds the US military by being very unbalanced.
Zezen ( talk) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so i cut out the following sentences out of the article: "In the end, the Operation Linebacker II missions allowed the United States Air Force to fully unleash it's power. Where prior operations against North Vietnam, such as "Operation Rolling Thunder" during the Johnson presidency, had been discontinued, the results in 11 days of the Operation Linebacker II bombing missions were different. Less than one month later, all sides signed off on the Paris Peace Accords and formally ended the war." This was mostly on the bases that this is a rather strong statement for which i would like a source, since this is also implying that the only reason for previous failures of bombing campaigns were simply US-political concerns. This is an..."interesting" perspective for sure, if one considers the ammount of bombs the US dropped during their engagments in Vietnam. Its not like the US wasn´t bombing North Vietnam quite heavely already. So yeah. I want a source for the claim that this operation was not only someway different then before (it was not like this was the first massive bombardment of north-vietnamese infrastructure), but also the reason why the peace-treaty was signed. Maybe, just maybe the accords were signed, because the North had already won?
If you make such a statement, i want a source for that.
And if the argument for keeping in this random, off hand comment is: "they US "lost" the war because they trusted Communists to keep their word, but that irrelevant", then iam not seeing the logic here. I´ll keep this mentioned part out of this article until someone gives me some logical arguments to keep it. -- Aradir ( talk) 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello,Dear Bumbubookworm, a while back I added some missing information to the page regarding the firebee UAV usage. It was removed by you saying it was Hearsay. Sir, this is not hearsay. My grandfather, LT COL Harold "Red" Smith was in charge of that operation, Deputy Chief of the RPV sector at SAC. The information I posted is from his book that we are working to get published. How can I properly cite this information so it is added to this page? Many people do not know about UAV use during Vietnam, UAV sorties were flown EVERYDAY during the Vietnam war. Here was my original edit that I tried to add to the article, it is important that this is added as hardly anybody knows of the importance that UAV's played in this war.
"BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) was only performed by the LIGHTNING BUG drone reconnaissance program. LIGHTNING BUG provided daily photo reconnaissance throughout the 11 year campaign. Highlights included the " Model 147E" capture of the SA-2 control frequencies dropping USAF/ US NAVY losses from 7% to 2% of sorties flown saving significant numbers of aircrafts and crews from death and/or capture! ALSO- LIGHTNING BUG was the only system capable of taking BDA photos during LINEBACKER II to assure target data for the B-52's!"
Please advise so we can rectify this matter. Thank you! Marshall Smith Aviation Unmanned Vehicle Museum (AUVM Dallas, TX www.auvm.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mts6789 ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello to all. I am surprised to read in the very first sentence : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77... Operation Linebacker II was in fact conducted by the Eighth Air Force, which was at that time a component of Strategic Air Command (SAC). The Seventh Air Force and the Seventh Fleet both played a very important, but supporting role during the B-52s night missions. This point is important since 8th Air Force (and SAC) were independant from the rest of the US chain of command for Vietnam (CINCPAC, MACVN etc.). Also some authors (Michel for example) have emphasized the problems with the centralized - out of theater - leadership exercised by SAC, especially during for the first days of the operation.
The table: United States Air Force – Seventh Air Force in the paragraph: U.S. air order of battle is also wrong and should be corrected.
I can modify the article but since English is not my mother tongue, I feel another editor would make a better job of it.
Regards, Domenjod Domenjod ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference you sent me (To Hanoï and back). It's very good and...confirms what I wrote. I haven't finished reading it yet but, as I wonder if YOU have read it at all, let me quote a few parts of it for your benefit:
Shall I continue? Well, you can argue about wording and say that I should have mentioned SAC rather than Eighth Air Force (which was a component of SAC and, like SAC, was in a different chain of command from CINCPAC/PACAF) but this is embarassing...As you and I are both dedicated WP contributors, I think we cannot let this article mention - as it still does - that : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77...without mentionning even once SAC and 8th Air Force. Remember: they dropped almost 90% of the bomb tonnage in this one...not to mention their human losses... To be fair, I also need to correct the sentence I wrote above about the role of 7th AF and 7th FLT during Linebacker II since they both made a significant contribution independantly of the B-52s DURING DAY TIME, besides supporting them during their night missions. I have added the correction in bold letters so that there is no doubt that it is not part of my original contribution.
Hello everyone. Further to the previous section, I would like to point out that, in my view, the article is VERY GOOD, with excellent sources. Of course, any article - including this one - car be improved. Here are the two areas where I see a need for improvement :
There are obviously other improvements that can be made in the article (source comments etc.) but, as far as I am concerned, I intend to focus first on the two above-mentionned points. Regards, -- Domenjod ( talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
-- Domenjod ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Any reader of this thread will notice your answer to my questions :
Any reader of this thread will also notice how long it took you to accept even a very minimal, basic, change (mentioning SAC/8th Air force in the lead section) that anyone who can read would have accepted immediately. Now, what seems to be your standard excuse (my "condescending tone") is not convincing and, as you know full well, the "consensus" you mention is very weak with only two persons - you and me - communicating so far. As I am busy doing other things right now, I'll get back on this topic in a few days. -- Domenjod ( talk) 12:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have the names of the people who are in this photo? 216.71.102.197 ( talk) 23:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)