# Talk:Operation Black Buck

"The Vulcan lacked the range ... as it had been designed for medium-range stand-off nuclear missions in Europe."  The Vulcan was designed for direct bombing raids, I think, and the Blue Steel standoff bomb was a later addition.  (With a 240km range, according to WP, hardly material.)  Best to leave out the bit about standoff, since it doesn't seem to be true or consistent, and perhaps even better leave out the whole lot, there is a Vulcan article which covers missions and range and so on for the Vulcan.  Without actual rsearch, it isn't just the Vulcan that lacked range for that mission, I think, was there actually any bomber that had range for that mission, anywhere? Midgley (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There wasn't, no. In theory and on paper a B-52H with 47,000 gallons, burning 3,000 gallons an hour, could just about do it, in ideal circumstances with no headwinds, and without allowing for the likely higher consumption at that kind of overload, but it would still probably have plunked into the sea a long way short of Ascension on the way back. In reality it would have required multiple refuellings. The USAF were extremely interested in Black Buck, since they hadn't thought a strike mission at that range was practical and the idea of tankers refuelling tankers to leapfrog the strike aircraft further was novel. (USAF tankers could not then refuel one another, which would have rendered the whole thing problematic if the USAF had attempted it.) Later USAF operations at very long range and endurance were essentially modelled on Black Buck. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In reply -- I removed this phrase today: ...having been treated well by the authorities, which was subsequently restored by Hawkeye, as being important. Why is it important? How do we, or anyone, know how well the crew was treated, except the crew? What does being treated well mean? Given three meals a day? Not being tortured? Allowed a 10 minute phone call home? Allowed to leave Brazil after only X days? Treated well in such a context cannot be defined. Even if they were "treated well", what bearing does that have on the article? It reads suspiciously like point scoring, in trying to give the impression Brazil was really on the UK side despite its public stance. It also reads as if the phrase has been taken from a book, where the author can be a little less constrained and rigidly neutral in his/her style than we need to be here. And last, but not least, I removed the phrase because it was not referenced. Happy to be persuaded to change my mind. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole article is referenced. Do not remove or challenge text without checking the reference. Look it up now. What does it say?  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree, the phrase is entirely subjective and non-encyclopedic.  I would back removal. WCMemail 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what "non-encyclopedic" means. The British account says: "The crew were very well treated by the Brazilians and were soon offered the opportunity to return home, but elected to stay until the aircraft was released." The Brazilian account says: McDougall e sua tripulação permaneceram por mais oito dias no Brasil sendo bem tratados por seus colegas da FAB, que os alojaram no Cassino de Oficiais da Base Aérea do Galeão. Passaram a maior parte de seus dias no Brasil to­mando banho de sol na piscina da Base. [McDougall and his crew spent eight more days in Brazil being well-treated by their FAB colleagues, who housed them at the Galeão Air Base officers' mess. They spent most of their time in Brazil sunbathing at the base swimming pool."] I didn't want readers to think that they had been mistreated.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
One of the suggestions from one source (can't remember whether it was a primary or secondary source, or how reliable it was), was that at least one evening of the internment were spent in the Copacabana nightclubs, (of course under the supervision of Brazilian Airforce officers). It seems like the Brazilian Airforce members were extending professional courtesies and hospitality. No suggestion that this was a statement of "political support" for the UK's position, just simply fellow professionals having a good time! 91.84.189.190 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Hawkeye, where did you get those 'British' and 'Brazilian' accounts from? Ref 56 is OR and thank you for trying to rescue ref 57 but it is still dead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The British account is from ref 48, and the Brazilian one is ref 57. I have corrected the archive-url on 57.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Why would anyone assume they had been ill-treated - that of itself would have been noteworthy. Brazil was neutral and required to operate within the Geneva convention, pretty much exactly what happened. WCMemail 08:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It is under the Hague Convention of 1907, which says that belligerent armed forces are to be disarmed and interned. The reputation of internment camps is not good in many countries.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"The raids, at almost 6,600 nautical miles (12,200 km)..." - no. Distance between Wideawake/Ascension and Mount Pleasant/Falklands is still 6300km or 3400nm. I said this 9,5 years ago. How often do i need to repeat this? 2003:DC:F738:A800:8DF2:A157:26D:C21 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Until you learn to provide a reliable source. I have corrected the article, which reflects a typographical error in the original source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)