Talk:Operation Bolo

message: Its here, Operation Bolo page took me five hours to write it and here it is
it made need some pictures and i may need help putting the pictures
:See Help:Images. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "It's Here!"

message: In the article, the statements of the F-4 having excellent handling with it's only weakness being the lack of a cannon conflict with even later statements in the same paragraph. AVKent882 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: F-4 Phantom II Performance & Handling

message: how does the articles get on the sites like Yahoo and google
:What are you talking about? Diez2 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, what 2 pictures are you talking about? Second, have you properly uploaded these pictures? Diez2 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You should save it onto your computer and then uploaded it through the saved file on your computer.  Please also read WP:TALK to see how to conduct conversations (with the proper syntax) and refrain from typing in caps as it is uncivil and seems like yelling. Cbrown1023 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I didn't mean that you were uncivil... I guess I phrased it incorrectly.  What I mean was when you type in caps, it looks uncivil...  Also, I don't know what you are taling about with the jpg... tons of images are in jpg... what's your problem with uploading? what do you need help with?? Cbrown1023 02:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed it... you put the wrong filename for the image... on the upload page it says "Destination filename" whatever you put there is what you type in the article... I had to backtrack through your image contributions to find out the name of the file, so it's easier if you do it yourself next time... if you have any more questions on this or anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.  Thanks, Cbrown1023 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pictures and internet

message: 1. There article should be looked over carefully for spelling and grammatical errors.  There are quite a lot, so here are just a couple of examples:
- Spelling:
line 5: Should be  ...within minutes...' and not  "...with in minuets..."
- Tenses:
3rd paragraph, last line: " they flew low until they got under the attackers, then pull up and slice through the formation with deadly results".
Change to either "they fly up..." or to "..., then pulled up and sliced through...".
- Singular vs plural:
3rd paragraph, first line: "So you have this gunless, Mach 2+, double seat fighter that are roaring...". 
Change to either "So you have these gunless....two-seater fighters...", or "...two-seater fighter that is roaring...".
- Other: 
last paragraph, last line: Should be '...greatest...' and not  '...most greatest...'.
2.  More important than the mistakes is the overall style of the narrative.  It is  not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.  Here are some examples :
'Suddenly Olds spots a MIG-21 shooting through the clouds; he breaks off the formation and follows the MIG. The Mig Pilot is stunned as he realizes the attacking planes are not F-105s, but F-4's. With in minuets he will be shot down along with six other MIG-21s in one of military aviation's greatest battles'
'Now sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo.'
'So you have this gunless, Mach 2+, double seat fighter that are roaring over a nation in "civil war" shooting down North Vietnam pilots and you think it didn't have a rival? Well if so, you’re wrong'
'Key to winning this new conflict is air supremacy, and America has a few aircraft to throw into the flames.'
'It was time for Rambler flight to make their mark. Captain John B. Stone was the leader of Rambler flight, and when they got to their destination, he spotted two (of what he would later learn)MIG-21's streaking through a break in the clouds. He dives and fires an AIM-7 sparrow, to his amazement the rocket does not fire. Unfazed, he shoots again this time with a good shot and gets his kill on one of the MIGs. Then a Third MIG jumps him from behind, but using a joint maneuver with “Rambler 02” he put the MiG in line of fire of Philip P. Combies (“Rambler 04”). '
Good luck.Alexandert14 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a dramatic, novelizational tone. Haizum 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean to be rude and I'm glad to see this article has been started - it's a very interesting story; but to be honest, when you say Phantoms were "dressed up" and "screams into the battlfield," that isn't using a particularly encyclopedic tone. More interesting to read, yes, but someone will probably come along and make some sweeping edits if it isn't changed. Haizum 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Now sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo." You should be a producer for The History Channel my friend. But again, not really fitting for an encyclopedia. --Haizum 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha. That's a fantastic show. I don't think editors are allowed to use transcribed narrations though. I'm honestly not sure. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to the author 

message: how do i get the picture to shrink?
and hoe do i get them in those boxes u guys have on other articles with pictures?Tu-49 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the image from? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robin Olds picture 

message: i c i got restrected for vandalism today and i c now i am free
one question:
i sites the pics and the sites i got the info from
y did i get hit with a vandalism thing? just wondering Tu-49 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  okay 

message: i got this in Vietnam article
where else should it go?
Tu-49 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Could you be more specific? --Your friend,  Darkest Hour 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About your priveious Q. Did you make sure you were not deleting other peoples edits and replacing them with nonsense? If so that is why U got the vandi. Message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catagorizing 

message: My research has shown this is genuine: "Seven North Vietnamese MiG-21s are shot down during Operation Bolo, a mission to draw out the North Vietnamese fighters into an air-to-air battle against U.S. F-4Cs" (Air Force Times January 6, 2003 Monday).
However. The article needs a large cleanup to comply with WP policies. e.g. there are very large quotes - either paraphrase or remove them. Mark83 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tag added 

message: I have nominated :Image:UbonRobinOldsChappieJames.jpg. In order for you to have produced it, you would have had to have been the guy on the flightline, taking the picture.--LWF 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Olds 

message: Tu-49, I believe we should revert it to my version. Can I do this without you changing it back?--LWF 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my two cents.  The Robin Olds section should not exist in TU-49's version.  It is 1 sentence, and that is not good for an entire section?  The mention in this revision] seems sufficient to me.  Overall, I do not see a major problem reverting back to this version.  It appears that not much content will be lost and the formatting is alot better.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibilty of Reversion 

message: LWF and Tu-49: I go to Harvard and I'm majoring in military history. Could I get a copy of both your articles and the suggested revisions, and then I could act as an intermediary so we could resolve the dispute without having to resort to yelling and flame fights?
--pandasandpenguins
sure--Tu-49 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party? 

message: :I personally think it would improve the article to move the section on Olds, to the Robin Olds article. It isn't that important to have a section on a dogfight from World War II, in an article on Vietnam. I think it could really confuse people reading the article.--LWF 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that paragraph isn't even about Bolo, it's about him, and it isn't about him learning how to dogfight, just that he was good at it. I still think that section belongs in the Robin Olds article. Plus the style is still wrong and there are rather large spelling errors.--LWF 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you would like, I could talk to the Aviation and Military History projects to see what they think of the paragraph, and if it should stay or not.--LWF 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The consensus from both projects has been the section should be removed. Although I see that this has already been done, since the consensus was received.--LWF 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robin Olds

message: ::On the Editing page where you add information, it states:
 Please note: 
*If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. 
*Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include the vast majority of web pages or images. 
:See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing.
::No one "owns" anything on Wikipedia; it is a community site governed by rules and guidelines. If you do not like a change another editor has made you need form a consensus (get others to agree with you) to change it back, rather than just reverting every change made. If you don't like these rules, you are free to try to get the rules changed first. Until then, you have to abide by them. If you don't like the rules on Wikipedia, and can't get them changed to your liking, then you probably need to find another website to contribute to.
::As I and others have said here before, this is a great topic that needed to be here, and you did a good job getting it started. It has attracted a great amount of attention from other editors this past week, which says that people are interested in the topic. Let them help, even if it's not exactly what your vision of the page is. - BillCJ 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: for the thing about the Atoll missile on operation Bolo
are you sure it was a tiwaneesse F-86 and Chinese MiG-17
I remeber hearing it was a MiG-15 the F-86 squared off with when the sidewinder missile got caught in the tail fin Tu-49 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atoll missile  

message: I don't see a GNU license on those sites, and Tu-49 sure as hell isn't the creator of them. Zaku Two 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images... 

message: um....okay what i got abouth the ruse tactic and about the secondary mission in which the Mastermind made a similar mission to this i got that off a T.V show but i think its trueTu-49 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: okay i like how this new article came out, but buckboard i would like to metion that earlyer on i metioned not to touch the accounts from the pilots, if it was nessecerary to edit them i would have known. also changes to other parts are apperceated in ways, just wanted to step up some of my concerns to those in future of editing Operation BoloTu-49 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want cooperation please give some. You edited out all of my source documentations from Boyne and Sherwood--done in the Harvard style, which is okay per wiki. The date set for Bolo was January 1 and it was postponed to January 2. Boyne's article has a typo--it says "Jan 2" in one paragraph but the context is clear in the next para that the date was January 1, and that most of the pilots, thinking that the weather would not make Jan 2 feasible either, were surprised when it was rescheduled for Jan 2. I have changed the documentation to Sherwood's Fast Movers, which makes clear the planned date was Jan. 1. And as has been mentioned stressed to you before, articles are not proprietary--when edits give or imply wrong information, they will be corrected--if not by me, then others.--Buckboard 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message about new editations 

message: The first two sections of the Background heading, Opposing aircraft and The MiG Threat both cover similar territory. Both mention the MiG 21's main or primary target being the F-105, for instance. Both talk about MiG agility. It's like two different authors wrote what they felt would be suitable and both versions appear here with no overall plan. Somebody want to stitch them together? Or separate them better? Binksternet 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy in Background

message: Hello, I'm doing some research into Operation BOLO.  I have a question on a certain portion of this article.  Within the MiG Threat paragraph it states, "Rules of engagement that had previously permitted the F-4 MiGCAP to escort the F-105s in and out of the target area had been revised in December to limit MiGCAP penetration to the edge of SAM coverage." I would like to find the source document for this statement.  Of all the articles and books I have found on Operation BOLO and Operation ROLLING THUNDER I have not seen any mention of the change in MiGCAP ROE.  Any help in clarifying this statement would be greatly appreciated. Daneman3 May 22, 2008
:See my response on my talk page to your question there.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Content 

message: Great article, it's reads very well. Could do with some more images though. Ryan4314  (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article... 

message: Neither of the planes pictured are known to have participated in the operation. The F-4C Phantom II that's at the Pacific Coast Air Museum wasn't attached to the 8th TFW until March 1967, two months after the operation. There's no indication that the MiG-21PF in the picture was involved in any way. Maybe we should edit the captions to indicate that these are just planes like the ones which participated. Rezin (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plane pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Bolo. 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/20061031102636/http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/indexe.html to http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/indexe.html
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) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If it's of any interest, Ian Black, in McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom: Owners' Workshop Manual (Haynes Publishing, Yeovil & Newbury Park CA, 2011, ISBN 978 1 84425 996 0), p.46, mentions that F-4 missile expenditure in the fight was 18 AIM-7 Sparrows for four claimed kills and 12 AIM-9 Sidewinders for three claimed kills: broadly a 1:4 success rate. However, the Vietnamese only in fact lost five MiG-21s. (US pilots generally overclaimed about 50%, which is not bad as these things go; German day-fighter pilots in the Second World War tended to claim about 200% more aircraft than they had actually destroyed.) So from 30 missile shots, the Phantoms gained a 1:6 success rate, which was fairly normal for those weapons at the time. 
This is not counting missiles that failed on the pylons and could not be launched. Capt (later Lt-Col) Everett T 'Razz' Raspberry, in 'Wolf Pack Assassin: Confessions of a MiG Killer', as told to James P Busha, FlyPast, May 2013, pp.83-89), mentions that, after tanking en route from Ubon, he proceeded to the combat area when he should not have done, because he didn't have enough missiles responding. 'The rule was you had to have at least two good radar missiles and two heat-seekers before you left the tanker. Well, when I checked out all my missiles I found I had only one good one out of my eight. I wasn't about to miss out tangling with a MiG so I kept my mouth shut and kept on going.' The existence of the two-plus-two rule suggests that 50% failure was normal. Raspberry had served as an instructor at the inaugural F-4C Fighter Weapons School at Nellis AFB, for which reason Col Olds asked him to train the Bolo crews specially: 'Colonel Olds came to me and said, " ... You know these guys don't know a whole hell of a lot about air-to-air or combat air manoeuvring or missiles for that matter -- so teach them!" ' But Raspberry admits: 'The problem was I had never fired a missile from an F-4 before; in reality not many of us had.' This is a surprising indication of the depth of the US fighter force's problems in Vietnam: poorly functioning hardware and little idea how to use it. Raspberry's one functioning missile, on the day, was a Sidewinder, and he claimed a MiG with it. 'Suddenly, just before he got to the cloud deck, the MiG-21 reversed his turn and I knew this was my one chance. I went to zero 'g' [the Sidewinder could only launch between -1g and +2g, an awkward constraint in a dogfight] and had my pipper right on him and squeezed the missile off. That AIM-9 shot out like a bullet and impacted right between the MiG's cockpit and tailpipe. He swapped ends and stalled out, falling into the undercast. I almost spun in myself, watching him spin down.' Because of the undercast, the Americans could not see their supposed victims hit the ground, and although you can't recover an F-4 from a spin -- in the RAF you were warned never on any account to spin a Phantom (Black p.133 -- 'Spinning the Phantom is not good. Crews were made to watch various "horror" videos of F-4s in flat spins, inverted spins and total departures, and the prognosis for a full recovery, as doctors would say, is not good' -- the author is a 1,000-hour Phantom navigator who went on to become a 500-hour Lightning pilot, sole successful candidate on the last Lightning training course) -- you can recover a MiG-21, so it's not known if Raspberry's MiG is one of the five actual victims or one of the two overclaims. If a Sidewinder makes a good hit, the target aircraft should no longer be in one piece as this MiG apparently was.
Raspberry concludes: 'The MiGs became scarce for a short time as they re-evaluated their tactics and then came back at us with a vengeance during the spring of 1967.' And MiG-21s continued to be a considerable nuisance for the next five years. What is notable about Operation Bolo is not so much that the most advanced US fighters, with specially-trained crews, a careful deception plan and the advantage of real-time ELINT from the RC-130 on station, could offer the Vietnamese a bit of a party, but that a single squadron of 16 Vietnamese MiG-21s could cause the US military colossus such an immense conniption fit. 
Incidentally, the name of Raspberry's guy-in-back on Bolo was Lt Robert Weston, not 'Western' as the article claims. Although it was almost a quarter-century since the days of the Tuskegee Airmen, Weston, being black, still stands out as unique in group photos of Olds's Phantom crews. At that time, Phantom backseaters were all qualified fighter pilots.
Republished internet version of Raspberry's article here: http://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fj-2014-april.pdf?746277  Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Missiles

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Bolo. 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/20090904012140/http://www.mapsairmuseum.org/f-4_phantom.htm to http://www.mapsairmuseum.org/f-4_phantom.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020130153/http://www.8tfw.com/ to http://www.8tfw.com/
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) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Robin Olds section refers to three F-4s lost in September and October 1966, adding this was "equal to the number of F-4s lost in the previous 12 years."
The first flight of an F-4 was in May 1958 and the F-4 entered service with the US Navy in March 1961, so this can't be a useful observation as is. Having no idea what timespan or specific comparison was intended here, I'm just going to remove this part of the sentence, but if someone can figure out how to make sense of it, it seems like a useful comment in principle and should be restored. 24.10.14.2 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-4 losses