Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell

message: Currently the article contains no mention of the 1945 crash.  I figure it's worth a mention in here, because that and the doolittle raid are probably the two events that place the B-25 in the public eye. Night Gyr 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the World Trade Center was designed to handle a fully loaded 707 hitting it (the WTC was directly in the flight path of three major airports) what they did not take into consideration was fully loaded with fuel hitting at take-off speed hitting the building.  The structures of both building are different - Empire State is girder construction while WTC was platform construction (which doe not do too well under both stress & intense fireDavegnz (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Empire State Building]] 

message: There is a B-25 bomber ("Skunkie") at Owens Field in Columbia that is, I believe, visible to the public. I've seen it on my own (actually been up to it, around it) once, in addition to a number of old jeeps. However, I went by recently and the gate was locked. With permission from the airfield, I believe one may see the plane. It is visible partially in the old hangar (http://www.curtisswrighthangar.com/start.html) over the doors. If you think this can count as being added to the list, please let me know. Zchris87v 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you goto Catch-22 for the entire B-25 listing done in December 2007Davegnz (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Catch 22 used B-24s? Perhaps the viewer was watching in stereo. Buk 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected that one without even seeing your note.  Also, please sign your talk-page comments with four tildes; it lets us see not just who made the comment, but date-stamps it, too.  Rdfox 76 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Museum" display

message: strafer of all series are cover in Avery chpt  12 pg 107 et seq all as previouly supplied  The Hawaiian mods for 41 bg are specifically addressed on 108 (upper right) however the whole of the page and chapter applies.  note also C1/D1 (pg109 and elsewhere). See end 109/110 and 8 gun nose retrofitting   Again, see also Rust, Seventh Air Force Story. citation request filled.    None remain on edits to this IP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation on armament mods

message: The section on the de-icing tests is way out of line with the rest of the article. It really needs paring or a separate page, IMHO. Buk 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -Signaleer 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flaming Mamie

message: The Collings Foundation owns and operates a B-25J (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tx_b-25jmitchell.htm) which should be added to the list. It is an operational aircraft that flies to many cities in the United States each year as part of their "Wings of Freedom" tour. I was able to view this fine aircraft up close at Moffett National Airfield a couple of days ago.User:Cephas2000 07:22, 19-May-2007 (UTC)
At a recent Air show at Bellville, Willow Run Airport, MI they had 15 B-25s flying, at list of them can be found at 
http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/airshow/aircraft.htm
::: bunch of posting - B-25 Survivors has been moved - lots and lots of links enjoyDavegnz (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding "Survivors"

message: Since there are so many B25's listed as surviving in the article, should they be spun off to their own Surviving B-25 Mitchells? Then we could expand on the individual planes, and the article would be a little less cluttered.
--TLein 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Done that - enjoyDavegnz (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the survivor list 

message: Anyone else ever read Whip by Martin Caidin and think it'd warrant some coverage here? The machinegun-heavy Mitchells feature extensively in that novel. 'Course, the novel would merit an article of its own as well.
--TLein 06:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture - Novel reference 

message: Just a little one, the "late model" gunpod was actually the first design of gunpod used on the B-25; it was based on a design manufactured in Brisbane, Australia for "Pappy" Gunn's B-25 gunship conversions. The later design of gunpod used two separate, elongated-oval shaped blisters...Minorhistorian (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caption updated.  Thanks for finding the mistake!  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Otherwise a good article. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Er, that gunpod

message: I understand the aircraft had a superior range, enabling its role in the Doolittle raid. Could anyone explain which design features contributed to this? Any key technologies?--Cancun771 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Superior is a comparative, superior range to what?  The range required for the Doolittle raid required removing almost all nonessential hardware and systems to reduce overall aircraft weight. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Range

message: I saw this in a newspaper article "PITTSBURGH—Divers and scientists plan to spend the weekend in Pittsburgh's Monongahela River, using new technology to search the murky waters for a mystery a half-century old: the remnants of a World War II-era bomber that crashed into the river during the Cold War.
The official story is that the B-25 bomber ran out of fuel on Jan. 31, 1956, when it was on its way to Harrisburg, and plunged into the river, narrowly missing a busy Pittsburgh bridge."
Anyone know until when the B-25 was used in USAF service ?
Cheers
--W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used by USAF until when ? 

message: The image :File:Empirestate540.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Empirestate540.jpg

message: Just like the B-17 article, I've inserted a notable B-25 section. As more articles are created, please insert links to them in there.Zul32 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Ruptured Duck link down to see also, dont need a section just for links. The other is not really notable it just has survived in a museum and as such is in the survivors sub-article and is not needed in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  added Noteable B-25's section 

message: The description on the Chanute Air Museum site is substantially similar to versions of our article between
*November 2008 and
*June 2009
Since our article has evolved over the last four years, a little at a time, it seems clear that their article infringes on ours and not the other way around. I have sent an e-mail to the museum and its website developers asking for an appropriate credit and license. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyyio?  Use without credit? 

message: The section about Australian air force says "It was not until the spring of 1944 that the Australians were to get Mitchells. By the spring of 1944, No. 18 Squadron had more than enough Mitchells .....".  Which is correct? Moriori (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradict 2

message: The main article should include some discussion of the B-25's role in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22, as well as the instrumentality of the film of the same name in preserving many examples of the aircraft. See: B-25 Mitchell aircraft in Catch-22 (film). Sca (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Catch-22''

message: Strikes me that since it is unusual for a USAAF aircraft to be named after someone, it's something that ought to be addresses in the article. When did the B-25 get the name "Mitchell" and who made the choice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The users section is not reflective of the primary users. The USMC and USSR exceeded the RCAF .  The USN , as stated in the article, only conducted trials with G & H series.  The RAF supplied other Commonwealth Nations from its Lend Lease allocations.  The RCAF used much of its allocations in North America as trainers, therefore reducing the total used in combat operations.  Recommend the top four as AAF, RAF, USSR, USMC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:9645:9D41:C01A:AFEA:FC0D (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Users

message: This is an anarchism.  No, it's an anachronism.  Anarchism is people with pink hair and nose piercings.  WB PREFIX DID NOT APPEAR until 1947/48 and is incorrect for WWII AAF WEA a/c.  Aircraft rececords show WEA in some cases. the IARC(s) for the subject B-25D do not show WB.  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your are probably right as most of the sources appear to be copying each other, but I cant find any reference in Andrade variant listing, which doesnt mention any B-25s using the WB prefix. Do you have a reliable reference that details these four aircraft and the fact they didnt change designation and at least we can add a note about the apparant anarchism. The current reference is http://www.hurricanehunters.com/history.htm which may not be considered a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: WB-25

message: bzuk made errorious statements at other pages that resulted in this page belocked from editing. Those statement are now recognized as false.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:9645:9D41:C01A:AFEA:FC0D (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: unlock page

message: Avery, N.L.; B-25 Mithchell The Magnificent Medium; Phalanx Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN; 1992. 
See pages 48 et seq for the B-25 and the BIG GUN
Includin pg 51 for X' and 52 for C-20/25 modifications and picture of one in sea sweep configurarion. See pages 100 for C1/D1 and 109 for G side pack in VII.  see pages 114 and 120 for G-12 mods.  See also Albatross instructions for Luscious Lucy and Shady Lady ( web search) and Sq/S In Action B-25.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography

message: In this section is a fairly late product B-25J configured as a J2 strafer ( not as a medium bomber).  Why is in this section?  And please provide citation that it is assigned as captioned.  The caption seems spurious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10C:D911:ACFD:FFF1:F0AC:6EE4 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early development

message: table now conforms to text and quantities.  Usn did not operate the type (only trials)  USMC AND USSR were major wartime users.  RCAF was not per text.  China was.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10C:D911:ACFD:FFF1:F0AC:6EE4 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: users

message: this section  is a mismatch of paragraphs without  an overall theme.  It starts out organized by geography and swithes to organization.  Thus AAF Operations in the Pacific are disjointed and the RAAF and NEI are not aligned with the Allied effort.  This is one example.  The overarching problem is the disorganized adding of material over time piecemeal without adhering to section topics.   Who will fix this and when?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: OPERATIONS

message: citation needed.  Where was this and where did it align in the AAF structure of 1944/45?  The picture is a later J2 strafer.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight Performance School

message: ref: The official seven volumn history of the AAF edited by Craven and Cate.  See also L. Hickey, Warpath Across the Pacific.  The strafer nose conversion of the C & D series were the C1 & D1 respectively and are identified by the four MG in in-line pairs,  and one fixed centerline gun in the former flex mount.  These usually have the dual gun, removable shell side gunpacks, a 30 cal in the camera window and a prone position tail gun.  When the J series came with two fixed starboard guns in nose, two more were fixed to the port interior and the center flex mount fixed in a five-gun nose arrangement known as the J1 subseries. (FEAF documents sometimes erroniously present these in block format, e.g. J-1, indistinguishable from the early block.)
The six gun nosed G & H conversions with two MG in the former cannon tunnel were the G1 and H1 subseries respectively.
The factory designed dual role strafer bombers were the D2 & J2 subseries and the post-production G-12 block gathered from all previous G blocks. 
While only a sidenote here, crewmember gave me orders which designated them as B-25J2 crews.  These pilots trained in A-20 RTU Groups first then were assigned to B-25 RTU Groups and replacement crews bound for overseas assignment.  ( The designation was not hyphenated.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: B-25 Strafers

message: The land-based Marine Mitchells were not navalized and were very similar to the many radar equipped AAFAC sub hunting B-25.  A navalized PBJ-1H had arresting gear for carrier trials.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: PBJ-1

message: The PBJ-D variant makes an incorrect reference to the H waist and tail.  that is an error that probably predates the D2 mod/ NA-100 production coverage and should be corrected for consistency. The H/J waist position, although similar , were different in several aspects ; the tail position was completely new on the H/J and unrelated to the D2/G-12 mod.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: PBJ-1D

message: The new location was not"required" by the addition of waist and tail gunners' positions.  That had been done in several hundred of the interim B-25D2, NA-100, and G-12  with the mid-ship dorsal turret.
As mentioned several times in the article, the dorsal turret in the forward location meant its guns could be brought to bear in straffing and forward defense.  Thus the waists and tail armament "permitted" the advantagious relocation.  Article corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  relocated dorsal turret

message: Robins Air Depot, GA and in theater, Sidi Ahmen Air Depot modified B-25C/D and a few early G series with open waist and prone tailgunners' position for the original four MTO Mitchell Bomb Groups (less 319th).
See War Baby of the South.  The mod appears in many  photo and is characterized by the external reinforcing stringer above the waist opening.  The 321BG DEP US with the Robins mods ( see Avery, magnificent medium) .  its been many decades ago I documented the mod and somewhere have the list of s/n(s) from Sidi Ahmen.  Avery may cover it in his book. I supplied him with the info.  I recommend you add a picture and brief paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: C/D waist and tail mods

message: The first B-25G into the MTO  ( Project No. 90099-R) were placed in the XII FIGHTER COMMAND ( Not BC) and were known as fighter bombers before the term was widely applied to bombing s/e pursuit types.  Some of these joined Proj. No 90101-R on DS to the NACAF (coastal air force).  In early '44 all remaining MTO B-25G Became part of the 310 BG then on Corsica where they flew wing postitons in bomb on lead formations, much like the ETO P-38J FBs did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: XII FC B-25G

message: Design and development has but one subsection titled something live Early Developments.  I am not about to move sections but there should be Continued Development ( with Gunships) and Later Developments ( like the J).  Then Operations would be free of developmental sections. if the areas of operations and users  are still maintained the some forthough is need to which discussion are area related and which are user related.  there is no header for Areas of Operations at present.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline

message: Please refrain from using Kinzey as a reference in this article. His books are notoriously poorly researched and contain numerious factual errors throughout.  The series was a photo-essay modelers' guide and abound with misconceptions not supported by research nor offical records.  The claim for the J-1 block for instance is untrue. The reinforcement plates appeared on the H-5 block which pre-dated the 1944 J-1 block ( only two J-1 were delivered in very late December 1943). The H-1 block had only starboard gun packs in continuance of the G-12 requirement , not due to failures, however the H-5 already have the package guns on both cockpit sides and reinforced plates.  Moreover the J series have pilot armor on both sides while the H onlly had pilot side armor.  The armor reinforced the skin as a secondary effect.  Please remove the citations so the recent edit can be corrected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinzey references

message: see any of several B-25 series/ block/ serial no. lists ( Avery will do, as cited in topic here).  Note the J-25 and J-27 blocks and the continuation of this pattern.  The desgination has een document in earlier topics. as the wiki protocol allows , anyne can added the citation if needed base on this TALK post.  I truust this meets your needs. if more specifics are desired, please be more specific in the request.  Otherwise, the citation needed tag is ready for removal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  info on alternating blocks

message: g  you removed outline improvements in the d&D main section.  This was previously introduced here in talk with NO objects.  the article is badly disorganization. you are NOT following citation needed tag protocol.  please refrain from deleting edits without following protocols.  it is unneccesary distruction. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no improvements, rather a poorly written, unreferenced section that was not reverted, was placed into an "invisible" note. Perhaps, you may want to use a sandbox version before introducing new sections that are being constantly under review. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Z?

message: Referring to the style guide for aircraft articles, the Aircraft Project Group recommends the following: The style of the aircraft article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aircraft_2> can be structured along these lines:
# The development and history behind the aircraft, often discussing why a manufacturer, airline, or air force felt there was a need for such an aircraft.
# The design and major features of the aircraft. This can be combined with above section as "Design and development" if both sections are small, or if the text works better it they are covered together.
# The Operational history, describing the history of the aircraft in use. This section is something like a "biography" of the aircraft.
# Major variants and subtypes of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done.
# The operators, usually a collection of links to airlines or individual air force squadrons that used this type. May be separated into Military and Civilan sections if applicable and workable.
# A list of survivors; aircraft exhibited in museums. If a large number of aircraft are still preserved, the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.
#Specifications. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard headings in an aircraft article

message: Looking at the outline, four (4) subheading are grossly misplaced.  I ve discussed some before and tried several not disruptive outline fixes. All were quickly deleted without discussion although there was an open and ongoing talk topic.  Please look look at the three sub-sub section under Operational History, Users, USAAF.  There  one will find three Design and Development topics header substantially:  Gunships; Return of the Medium Bomber; and Flight Characteristics.  The latter is totally unrelated to combat operations.  Even within itself it meanders into USAF post-war variants, the post-war Haynes Modifications, showbirds on the show circuit, and physical imparements.  Much of the discussion is unreferenced, needing citations. The parargraphs on the April 18, 1942 raid also contain development of th B, C, and D series that are misplace and need to be moved to Design and Development.
The fourth misplaced section under Users is the Empire St. Bldg crash aligned with the foreign user.  Perhaps the closest place for this single incident would be with events in the media.  it is outside the scope of the section in which it sits. it requires a move ( a move is required.)   
[Done. thanks]
the design and Development section can accomodate the other very easily with just a little introduction.  I ve discussed and demonstrate this previously. ( It has been discuss .)
How soon will the changes appear?  And by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline Appeal

message: Copy/edit from the article: "The lessons of combat led to further developments and design changes such as commerce straffers introducing strafing capability (see Far East and Pacific);  with gunships, cannon armed attack versions (see Gunships) and radar search aircraft variants utilizing search radar.  Other missions adaptions requirements led to variants such as crew trainers and recconessence reconnaissance aircraft and  brought about other mission-specific variants specific role models. Lastly, the AAF and NAA combined requirements and designed solutions that could be produced on the assembly lines without post- production delays. The factory strafer nose was one such development produced in alternating blocks at the factory late in the war (See image of B-25J2 above).
:This is a section that could conceivably be added to the lede, but on its own, makes no sense sequentially in a history of the type, and has multiple errors. The section is moved here for comment. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been identified as problematic by a number of editors. The persistent and continual reverting to this original submission, complete with errors (see changes made directly to the text) is the issue. Once Bold-Revert-Discuss is invoked, the "Discuss" needs to take place. Editing that is disruptive by restoring information or content another user has expressed issues with, as was done at this article is a serious concern. With the overarching "personal" voice evident, this section requires a complete rewrite,if it is to be kept at all. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual term used for unique versions of aircraft is "variants" preferred over types, mission roles, or the like. Note, there is a warning already in place about incivil comments; one more instance would result in being blocked. Make comments about the work, not the person. As to the section, unless there is consensus for its inclusion, it has already been identified as unnecessary to the article. Checking back as to the edit record will indicate who initiated this discussion and when. The edit comments on revisions to the article main space also are recorded. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

text: There is obviously an issue of self-awareness involved. Check with the edit summaries where another editor removed the section entirely, I had placed it into an "invisible note" and introduced the topic on the talk page for comment but there is no consensus for its retention, rather a series of ill-founded and intemperate comments, even after being cautioned.  I am done. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wartime requirements

message: There are comment inserted in the article for infomation that has already appeared in talk topics.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: citations provided

message: Comments such as this where you compared other editors to child molesters are entirely unacceptable, and rude and confrontational comments such as this, this and this aren't much better. You have been asked repeatedly by other editors to provide sources for the material you want to add and stop the personal abuse, and I would like to reiterate this. Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars for the basic requirements Wikipedia asks contributors to follow - none of them are terribly demanding - all that's requested is that you treat people here the same way as you would treat colleagues or acquaintances. If your conduct continues past this point your accounts will be blocked and you will be locked out of the articles you wish to edit. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the IP editor 

message: The section of Flight Characteristics lodged in Military Operators between the USAAF and the RAF seems misplaced in my opinion.  Is there consensus on the current location?  Because the section goes on to provide anecdote on particular some B-25, it is difficult to recommend a placement or what level of detail belongs in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight Characteristics

message: these strike me as design & development topics. is there consensus on the current location or shound these be moved to design & Development?
(Note the AAF was not the exclusive user.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Development of the Gunships (G&H) & J series.

message: I did not introduce this topic but I can offer one citation now.  There are many.  pg 235 et seq , One Damned Island After Another , Saga of the Seventh, Howard, C & Whitley, J.; Zenger Pub. Co. Wash., DC 1979 reprint. ISBN 0-89201-049- 5 ( 1946, U of NC Press, Chapel Hill, NC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B121:F8D9:28E9:7CD1:8E76:919E (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAIPAN, Tinian, Guam

message: Avery, (previously cited), pages 138 & 139 discusses the Hayes mods and the exhaust collectors specifically in listing at lower case I ,semi collector ring.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B117:1F1:B66A:6DFC:5761:AEF3 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayes  mods, 1952

message: have been provided in detail several times at this talk page under different topic.  therefore this recap will be brief and use short titles:
Craven and Cate , vol II, III, IV, V, & VI,;
Avery, Magnificent Medium, various pages, esp'ly G coverage on date of Design initiation; also on C1/D1;
AAF STUDY 62 ( on line); 
Hickey; Warpath...
others in previous discussion.
reminder: citation needed tag instructions require only that citations be provided at the talk page, not at the article. anyone can added the reference notes.  
I trust this fulfilled the citation request and it will now be deleted.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series Development citation

message: . The North American XB-21(NA-39) of 1936 contributed to the design and development of the NA-40.
The history of the failure on XB-21 can be read by following the link and is extraneous to the B-25 story. recommend two sentences be collapsed as show above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: XB-21

message: ref. Maurer Maurer (...Units, or ...Squadrons)
The (only) two major theaters in WWII for the Americans were:
EAME ,  Europe, Africa, Middle East; and
The Asian-Pacific.
  
The EAME consisted of the ETO, MTO & Northern Atlantic for command and control purposes.
The Asian- Pacific is more complex due to political accommodations.
The asian China, Burma, India (CBI) theater was a politically and militarily divided with the British  dominating its Southeast Asia Command, and the Chinese, its homeland.
The Americans divided the Pacific into the Army commanded Southwest Pacific Area (SWPA), and the Navy controlled Pacific areas of the CPA, NPA, South Pacific. Nimitz delegated authority in SOPAC and the NPA. The POA was a command and control convention that never included the SWPA regardless of casual usage to the contray.
All these areas had campaigns defined by boundires in time and geography.  The Western Pacific, for an example, was a campaign.
Please stay to historical usage in encyclopedic editing. Maurer can be consulted on-line. Note this is US usage as it pertains to this article on primarily a US AIRCRAFT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The South-East Asian theatre of World War II and Pacific War Theater, sometimes called the Asia-Pacific War Theater are the terms generally in use by military historians. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps he has, and has decided that some of the sources that endorse other terminology have some merit as well? Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Theaters - US ARMED FORCES

message: I have had a suggle round of the talk page to put into more conventional chronological order, apologise if I made any mistakes trying to make sense of it all, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Tidy

message: BYWATER, M; B-25s Target Kyushu; B-25 Press; Riverside, CA; 1994; ISBN O-9639575-0-3
Ref page 162. subject as above, right galley, 2 nd full para. 
another citation to fulfill citation needed request, which may now be deleted.  Note: in three of the four group squadrons the complement consisted of J, G, & D series. The fourth was the all-J series glide torpedo squadron.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B021:C8A4:7D58:C5AD:61AE:CDD5 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-25 nose/rocket mod citation

message: Close
PreviewingTalk:North American B-25 Mitchell
SaveSummary:By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL license.
NA40
There is too much coverage (3 paragraphs) on the NA 40. Only to points are salient: it lead to the NA-40B; and it introduced the R-2600.
NA-40B
The coverage is fragmented and needs to be consolidate; then reduced to the essence. It gave NAA design experience in twin engined bombers; introduced the tricycle gear; and influenced the compact cross section and canopy arrangement. A picture is appropriate to show these points. The remained is the story for this plane but not the B-25. Neither it or its predecessor are B-25 variants, being attack designs, and do not belong in the variants section.=NA40==
There is too much coverage (3 paragraphs) on the NA 40.  Only to points are salient: it lead to the NA-40B; and it introduced the R-2600.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:FE65:591C:60B8:8DF5:9A4 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The NA-40 and NA-40B are the same airframe. The  40/40B gives context leading to the NA-62 design but there is no NA-62 built as ordered off the drawing board. AS we currently do not have a NA-40 article, leaving coverage of it here is no detriment. Yes the development section needs rewriting, but that's a thing that happens. WP Not Finished and all that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NA-40

message: This was significant event in the American war effort and in the history of the Mitchell.  However the coverage in the B-25 article would better serve the both the article as a whole and the event if the two, long parargraphs were redesigned as one shorter paragraph with a hypertext link to an article on the raid.  Any details desired can be carried over by incorporation at the link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doolittle- Halsey Raid

message: Just to note that IP 2600 has been blocked from editing and they are not allowed to contribute, as such any contributions can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 2600

message: I made a tenuous edit to the section, adding a bit about a 1947 crash.
While I haven't found much information that has not been exaggerated or fabricated by ufologists, the crash seems to have really happened. That is if we can take the newspaper scans floating online at face value, which I'm not sure about, considering they are mostly found in conspiracy and UFO sites.
Any feedback from more experienced editors would be appreciated.--Pathanb
I readded the section about the Pittsburgh crash,  it is significant to the population of the city and there has been many dredging projects with the Army Corps of Engineers to find the plane.  --Feickus  —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thousands of B-25s have crashed in accidents and other than the Empire State accident none of those added appear to be of any note to the aircraft. Being notable in Pittsburgh is not really relevant to the B-25. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to make WP:AIRCRASH, which is the inclusion criteria for crashes in aircraft type articles, unless there is more information showing that it is significant for reasons beyond rumoured cargo on board. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! That was a much better argument to remove than WP:WEIGHT. If that had been used in the original edit or my portion,  I would not have reverted back. - Feickus (talk)Feickus (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents and Incidents 

message: The text saying "the heavy M4 cannon mm" is missing a "75" before the "mm".  (The article seems to be locked, but does not show it.) 184.209.1.89 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks BilCat!    72.58.238.146 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-25H section 

message: The acronym AAF comes up quote a few times. Is this the same as USAAF? Could this be made more consistent throughout the article? Alternatively, could AAF be spelled out the used... preferably with a Wikipeda link?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.196.123 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, . - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAF? 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 9, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on North American B-25 Mitchell. 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/20120310001635/http://i-ota.net/BarbieIII/ to http://i-ota.net/BarbieIII/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In flight characteristics it says "The pilot had to remember to maintain engine-out directional control at low speeds after takeoff with rudder; if this maneuver was attempted with ailerons, the aircraft could snap out of control."
While true of the B-25, it is also true of virtually all multiengine aircraft that have the engines mounted on the wings, so it is not a flight characteristic peculiar to the B-25.
More fair to the gentle handling characteristics of the Mitchell would be to say, "Above 145mph, the minimum safe single engine speed, directional control is easily maintained with the rudder." T.O. 1B-25(T)J-1, Page 3-1
Also important to the flight characteristics of any aircraft is its stalling behavior.  Page 6-1 of the T.O. 1B-25(T)J-1 states "Stalls are not vicious or violent.  Both the buffeting preceding the stall and the stall itself are relatively gentle."
Avedoc (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flight characteristics" consider edit 

message: Original remarks herein suggest the removal of the top turret was a not-unusual field modification by Pacific units late in the war, but no published substantiation of this is provided. Turret removal was a post-war modification done when increased passenger capacity was desired, but I have never seen any proof of such modification in any combat theater as described by the original writer. Documentation needs to be provided or the remarks should be removed so that the integrity of actual wartime PBJ configurations used is maintained; a wartime photograph of a turret-less PBJ Mitchell would be ideal.2600:100C:B22D:8E08:2952:11BE:B0E0:8BDD (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unsourced, as is most of that section, so it can all just be removed as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Turret removal as noted in "US Navy and USMC" section under "Operational history"

message: The Psychedelic Monster was a B25 painted in lurid colours, used as a camera platform for 1961 film Battle Of Britain starring pretty much everybody.  AFAIK it still exists and is being restored to flyable condition in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2788:1008:2c3:e2cb:4eff:fe88:1a2d (talk • contribs) 
:Need a reference; got one? - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With a ref, it would go in List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't see a mention of the Psychedelic Monster