Talk:Operation Arc Light

message: Did these B-52s really carry 1000 pounders in 1965? In 1972, they all (both D and G models) carried either 500 or 750 pounders.
I'd like to add information on the typical 'box' delivery footprint of cells used for CAS. One source I have says the 3-plane cells followed single file through the box, but  John Paul Vann at the siege/battle of Kontum asked SAC to run the planes in formation to get a wider coverage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.118.176 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arc Light was also traditionally restricted to South Vietnam. Bombloads varied based on the mission, and by '72 at Kontum the operational parameters had changed enough that Vann might have been able to get them to vary their formations. Prior to that, especially in the early days, SAC's centralized control was so strong that any variation in formations would not have been tolerated.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

message: Were also called "ball games." The three-plane formations were essential for their electronic countermeasures to work properly. — a single plane or even a pair of them could deny SAM-2 radar, range information but not azimuth — a 3-cell formation blanked radar coverage completely. Once Israelis brought home an SA-2 and supplied it to US, different tactics were used that could cause a SAM to self-destruct, but the 3-cell "ball games" continued. BTW, BULLET SHOT' was the term used for support technicians rotated to Guam on 179-day temporary duty (TDY) — 180 days or more of TDY qualified as a permanent change of station (PCS) and entitlement to PCS allowances. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  three-plane formations known as "cells" 

message: User:PaulinSaudi is correct that this is poor page, but not that it hardly matters. To circumvent edit wars, I'll work on it in User:Pawyilee/Sandbox. Editor/warriors are welcome to diddle with it, and to leave comments at User talk:Pawyilee/Sandbox. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the Air Force's almost delusional self-importance at times, I'm not sure using the Air Force Historical Studies Office as a source of the (arguable) effectiveness of Arc Light is appropriate. None of the services learned less as a result of the Vietnam War than did the Air Force. If any of us are really interested in making this a good, reasonably complete article, we would have to mention the controversy inherent in bombing the crap out of South Vietnam ostensibly for its own good, with the political and human costs of doing so added in.--172.190.68.130 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor page 

message: "Releasing their bombs from high in the stratosphere, the B-52s could neither be seen nor heard from the ground as they inflicted horrific damage."
Perhaps, but Vietcong etc. could tell when a raid would come. The sky would be clear of gunships and other aircraft, Vietnamese would then hide underground. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It also developed after the war that "invisible" were reading our garbagen for clues to when the next "ball game" would launch. Too bad I don't have a source for that. There oughta be an article on reading garbage; methods developed for urban archaeological examination of middens can uncover just about everything worth knowing about you — invisibly.--Pawyilee (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible 

message: A B52 flying so high up that you can't see it, dropping 30 tons of free-fall bombs, as described, couldn't even by the wildest, widest stretch of the imagination be called CAS... 85.229.55.181 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLOSE Air Support? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Operation Arc Light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051109002837/https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/arclight.htm to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/arclight.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Anything I write here is from the perspective of a son of Major Jack R. Lippold, Pilot, 28th Bomb Wing, Ellsworth AFB. We moved to Ellsworth at the very end of 1965 and left for Little Rock AFB in the latter part of 1967,  During that period, Jack deployed to Anderson AFB with the 28th BW two times, for approximately 6 months each tour.  Jack always referred to both tours as ARC LIGHT.  There were at least two bomb wings assigned to Anderson, as there were many anecdotes about the lack of revetment space, and aircraft parked on overrun and taxiway areas.  I believe the second wing present for at least part of the time was the 484th Bomb Wing from Turner AFB, as detailed elsewhere on Wikipedia.
In apparent contradiction of others on here, the 3-aircraft cell formations during early Arc Light bomb-runs were NOT single-file, or at least not always so. Jack's descriptions were consistently of being the lead aircraft in the 3-ship formation, with the other aircraft to both his right and left. This description is reinforced by "Super-8" 8mm movie film in my possession from the cockpit of Jack's aircraft, showing bomb release by both wingmen over SEA, during 1966 and 1967.
The aircraft may not have been visible at altitude, but most of the Super-8 footage I have suggests that pronounced contrails were common. Jack discussed efforts that were made to change altitude to avoid "conning". Horseheaven (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units, Calendar, Cells, "Invisible"