# Talk:Operation Flax

This page is in grevious error. Operation FLAX was carried out by Ninth Air Force, which was commanded by Maj. Gen. Lewish H. Brereton. Doolittle played no role in it. 206.54.222.20 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are in grievous error. Dootle was commander of NASAF (Northwest African Strategic Air Force) and he was ordered to plan and execute the operation for the USAAF. The Ninth Air Force is not important. It was merely a sub-command of the Theatre Commands. Even then, its groups were spread around all over the place in different Strategic commands (including in the Middle East). It was only part of the US force that took part. For example the 1st Fighter Group took part which belonged to the 12th Air Force. Dapi89 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is pertinent to an edit I just made. The article asserted that Ninth Air force was "under Carl Spaatz", which I deleted. While technically true, inasmuch as all air operations in Northwest Africa were "under" Spaatz, it was misleading to the average reader not familiar with the Allied air command structure. I took it that Spaatz needed to be inserted into the narrative but this was not the way to do it. The paragraph wound up implying that Tedder and the commander of this sub-command (as characterized above) were making the final decision. In fact Spaatz ran the whole air shebang in Northwest Africa--Doolittle included--and Tedder as commander of all air in the Med was his immediate commander. This is supposed to be a GA.--Reedmalloy (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If something is correct then there is no real reason to delete it. I haven't a problem with countering an overly simplified word or two (which was intended to keep the blurb down). Tedder and Spaatz made the decision on whether or not the operation took place. That is a strategic-level decision. So the article is right to imply they were making the final decision: they were.
I think you also underestimate the influence Doolittle had. Spaatz did not step outside his area of responsibility nor did he set operational parameters. Doolittle ran this operation. Once the green light was given, he 'ran' things with support or advice from Spaatz and Tedder.
After the deletion I am going to have insert them earlier since no explanation of who they are appears until the Orbat section.
There is nothing there that is inappropriate for a good article. Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Flax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
There are links to disambiguation pages for logistic, operation and Staffel.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
The article is well referenced.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
The article covers the major aspects.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
The article maintains a neutral point of view.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Great work, well done. Harrison49 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Dapi89 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The following citations correspond to no sources listed in the bibliography:

Zaloga and Welply 2005
Price 1997
Dear and Foot 2005
Apostolo and Massimello 2000
Thomas 2005
Can whoever added them fix this? Srnec (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Operation Torch was NOT a purely American operation. There was a substantial British element. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 It may be of some interest to note that earlier in the day of April 18, 1943, USAAF P-38 Lightnings shot down

Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in the Pacific in Operation Vengeance.  This was a bad day for the Axis Powers.2602:306:BDC0:CF90:B4F8:1C56:AB01:EDD (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

South African Squadrons were part of the Commonwealth forces. As such, they flew Curtiss Kittyhawks of various mark (Curtiss Hawk Model 87) or potentially earlier Tomahawks (Curtiss Hawk Model 81). So that the 'P-40' designation never saw service or was used by Commonwealth air forces. Is the reference to South African "P-40s" used as a placeholder because the true model of Curtiss fighter flown by the SA at the time simply not clear? If so this would seem to make sense, but if we have clearer information available on the type in action, then I feel we should rather use the correct 'Kittyhawk' or 'Tomahawk' as appropriate. 109.145.143.250 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)