# Talk:Interception of the Rex

The GA nomination is much appreciated (especially on the first day of its posting). I disagree with the edits to the opening summary, but am willing to let it ride in light of the GA process. My understanding (I know wiki changes style every time someone sneezes, so I apologize if I haven't kept up) is that the opening summarizes the article, so that someone looking for a brief encyclopedia explanation can find the distilled, relevant facts. The changes done to the opening defeat this. Writing a good opening is perhaps the most difficult part of a lengthy, detailed article, because it implies information not included is extraneous (in this case the background of prior efforts), but that is rarely the case. (Here, the events in 1921, 1931, and 1937 lead to a better understanding of why 1938 took place.) If the process does not go forward after a time, I will likely restore the opening to its original form. Thanx again to the editor who place the nomination.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened is that the intro was VERY detailed. So this information was sectioned into the body of the article. What needs to happen now is that a few sentences summarizing the information not already included in the intro needs to be added back. I think you're just the person to do it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanx. :-).--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
As it turned out, I could not reconcile the awkward organization. I incorporated a bit of it back into the opening summary, others into the text, and deleted the remainder. Regarding the ? in the review below on images. If anyone can contribute, please do, there are many govt images out there. I have no downloading skills.Reedmalloy (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AC  #80 ....  My father, Corp James E. Sands,  was the Radio Operator for on that mission.  He flew with Haynes and Lemay many times.
I have a group picture of the crew in front of the Aircraft.  My father eventually retired a Lt. Col after a very colorful career.  He
served from 1931 to 1961 and I 1964 to 1984.
67.236.18.200 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
<ref> As told by my father.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Interception of the Rex. 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/20130313132536/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090601-130.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090601-130.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913112905/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2480 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2480
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 14:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Interception of the Rex. 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/20160126080619/http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/afhso/aircorpsnewsletter/index.asp to http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/afhso/aircorpsnewsletter/index.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507070720/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9855 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9855
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027123137/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10074 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10074
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126080619/http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/afhso/aircorpsnewsletter/index.asp to http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/afhso/aircorpsnewsletter/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 00:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that by 1938 the Navy had pretty much given up on high-level bombing (e.g. from B-17s) in favor of low-level dive bombers, and especially torpedo bombers.  The Navy had at one point viewed high-level bombing very positively, and had funded the initial development of the Norden bombsight, which promised to be able to put 50% of it's bombs within a 100 foot circle (that being approximately the width of a battleship), from a plane flying above the range of anti-aircraft fire.  While the Norden could do that, under ideal conditions and with a highly skilled operator, under typical conditions with a typical operator it could only put 50% of it's bombs in a 1/4 mile circle.  Worse, the Navy quickly realized that, in the time it took for a bomb to fall from "out of range of AA fire", the target ship would move and no longer be within the circle being aimed at.  That problem was seen as insurmountable, and in WW2 high-level bombing was relegated to attacks on ships which were docked, or otherwise motionless.  The Army Air Force, which didn't have to concern itself with the actual practicality of hitting a ship (let alone a ship protected by AA guns), was happy to perform stunts like this, even tho they had little real value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:c7c0:47e:2d87:a9ac:9b41 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)