# Talk:Bomber Mafia

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)

Thanks for the critique. My aim was to splash some basic information up and get the article started. I have none/zero/zed books on my shelf describing the Bomber Mafia in detail—this article was formed from online sources only. I welcome any and all additions and reorganizations of it. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 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)

There is not one true story about this; there are many stories. If you have a reliable source describing a different viewpoint, bring it into the article. Note that the arbitrary USAAC 500 pound limit on fighter munitions was made up of integral machine guns and ammo, not bombs or external stores. I got the idea for this paragraph from Kelsey's own book, a copy of which was at UC Berkeley for me to examine. The book is rare, and it is not very well organized, but it describes Kelsey's take on what happened with late 1930s USAAC fighter development over which he held command. In his book, he does not write the word "mafia" at all. Instead, he names the bomber advocate leaders, so it is clear which group is being described. At any rate, feel free to bring your sourced text into the article to present another view. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So the bomber advocates were the people who imposed the armament limit on persuit-category aircraft?   As I understand it, there was also a one-engine restriction on pursuit-category/single-crew aircraft:  Were the bomber-advocates responsible for this too?  AVKent882 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In the 1991 book The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter, on page 14, author Warren M. Bodie says that single-seat aircraft were limited to one engine by most military air arms in the 1930s—it was considered too difficult to control two engines at the same time as navigating, flying, operating the radio and fighting. Binksternet (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
So, they didn't believe it was do-able?  That makes sense.  How did they manage to convince the USAAC to accept the P-38 then?  AVKent882 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Kelsey and Saville thought 'what the hell' and came up with the 1000-pound armament versions of the single engine fighter (P-39) and the twin-engine version (P-38). I guess their bosses were proved wrong when they saw men flying the P-38 successfully. You know, not only did the aircraft have two engines but it had two superchargers! It was a bear to operate, I bet. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought the P-38 and P-39 were developed concurrently?  One was to be a single-engined plane (P-39); the other a twin-engined plane (P-38) AVKent882 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they were developed from the simultaneously released Circular Proposal X-608 and Circular Proposal X-609, the first proposal for twin engine and the second for single engine fighter, but both designs had to meet the same performance requirements: single seater, at least 360 mph, climb to 20,000 ft within six minutes, carry 1000 lbs in weapons and ammo. Kelsey and Saville wrote the proposals but they did not design the aircraft! Bell and Lockheed won the competition over designs from Curtiss, Vultee, Douglas, etc. Perhaps the Lockheed P-38 was not impossible to fly with two engines because it had more than the usual automatic settings the pilot could engage—military pilots who first got into it thought it was like a Cadillac vs a Ford. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bomber Mafia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written: 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)
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
Verifiable with no original research: 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)
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
(c) it contains no original research
Broad in its coverage: 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)
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 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)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 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)
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 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)
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Any changes/fixes/alterations that you recommended? Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 Nope, no need to worry about that, Binksternet. I am pleased to announce that my review of this article's GA candidacy has brought back satisfactory results. It will be my honour to add Bomber Mafia to the list of War and military GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks for the review! Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327030959/http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/916808.pdf to http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/916808.pdf
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)