![]() | Bomber Mafia has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 24, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
USAAF Lieutenant General
Harold L. George (pictured), the unofficial leader of the "
Bomber Mafia", became mayor of
Beverly Hills, California, after
World War II? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article could use a paragraph describing Hugh Trenchard and the RAF bombing doctrine taught at RAF Andover, and another paragraph about Bomber Harris and how the doctrine developed through WWII. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Good start. A little too cut-and-dried regarding conclusions, but that's what the wikipedia process is for, eh? Also, the inclusion of many individuals such as LeMay is after-the-fact re the Bomber Mafia, per se. A dichotomy needs to be established regarding those who were the Mafia and those who became its acolytes. There is much documentation out there to show the nine ACTS instructors who were the "original" members, including Moon, who was left out here. Dying in 1937 doesn't exclude him.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
According to what was stated in the article, they both worked to circumvent the Bomber Mafia's restrictions on pursuit-designs (which limited single seat pursuit aircraft to a single engine and a 500 pound bomb capacity). Is this actually true that the Bomber Mafia imposed these limits, or was it another group of people within the USAAC who were opposed to single seat pursuit-aircraft having two-engines and/or more than 500 pounds of bombs? I've heard claims that went either way AVKent882 ( talk) 03:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I made a few minor adjustments to the wording here and there, after which I believe that all prose, grammar, list-incorporation, and layout MOS policies are followed accordingly.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article uses many reputable third-party sources, and makes frequent inline citations to them. I've detected no OR violations anywhere.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
With an appropriate and non-excessive quantity of coverage on a variety of key aspects to the topic, I feel that the coverage provided by the aarticle is complete enough to satisfy this GA criterium.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is neither biased towards nor against its subject, in any way.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No edit warring has happened on the article for at least three years.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
All three images used in the article are public domain, and thus cannot violate fair use policies. Each one has a valid license provided, and serves a useful purpose in illustrating the article.
Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (
talk)
07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bomber Mafia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1) " Although flawed and tested only under optimal conditions, the doctrine (originally known as the "industrial web theory")[8] " 2) "In World War II, the bomber mafia's theory of the primacy of unescorted daylight strategic bombing was proved wrong.[2] Fleets of heavy bombers were not able to achieve victory without the cooperation of the Army and Navy, and required the protection of long-range fighters for deep penetration missions. Overall casualties in the war were not minimal, and victory did not come significantly quicker.[2] Precision in bombing was not achieved until long-range fighter escorts became available and air superiority was achieved, as opponents had warned. The strategic bombing concept, however, was a major factor in the eventual victory and became the first core doctrine of the independent United States Air Force. Its proponents continued to promote the doctrine into the nuclear age, forming the Strategic Air Command to carry out a vision modified to fit the needs of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear warfare.[2] The bomber mafia was gradually replaced in the 1950s and 1960s by advocates of intercontinental ballistic missile warfare."
These statements rely in strawman that bomber Mafia main assertion was that war could be completely and solely won by unescorted bombers. Reading the source material the assertion appears to be one of *primacy* as a strategy, not one of exclusivity and totality. There us a similar problem on the "industrial web theory" page.
Secondarily there is the issue of the technology being immature during WWII, with much lower levels of precision
Thirdly we cant say it was "proved wrong" since it wads never tested. The US did not devote all, most, 75%, 50% or even 20% of it WWII warfighting resources to heavy bombing. Then number is closer to 7%, unless one counts the Manhattan project -- which would be ironic, since it can be said to have proven the theory completely correct. Explainador ( talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)