Talk:North American A-36

message: This is a very well done article.  I was thrilled to see Robert W. Gruenhagen's book as one of the references (it's always been one of my favorites, especially his treatment of the development aspects of the Mustang design).  The P-51 article, found elsewhere on this site, could certainly benefit from some of Mr. Gruenhagen's research, as well as the other excellent works listed as references!  Good show!192.100.70.210 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicely done 

message: You might like to take a look at my book on the A-36, which was first published in 2000 by Crecy and is full of interview with A-36 pilots. It is the only full-length book about this airplane. Incidently, the RAF DID use a few despite your comments to the contrary. Peter C Smith
http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Straight.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PETERCHARLESSMITH (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I stand corrected - most of my reference books are twenty or thirty years old so may somewhat be out of date. Be interested to know what the RAF pilots called them - Invaders or Mustangs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Straight Down 

message: In the information box it names the first flight was in October 1942. So the first us in combat is NOT the 19 August 1942!!!  Please correct it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.186.8 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the appropriate sections carefully as the dates in question are linked to two different marks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use in combat 

message: I note with some puzzlement the strange use of ".30 in (7.62 mm) caliber" and ".50 in (12.7 mm) caliber" in place of the traditional "30 caliber (7.62)" and "50 caliber (12.7 mm)". This is not used by any system of munitions known and looks odd as it is now. Can this be corrected to bring the entire descriptive name together instead of the current article misuse of embedding the specific mm size within the name and adding a superfluous "in" within the standard measures of "50 caliber", "30 caliber", etc since these aircraft did not use this method of describing weapons and ammunition sizes in this way it throws the flavor of the article off. The written term ".50 in" is spoken "point five inch", such a mouth full would never have been used at the time to describe munitions and weapons. The standard would be to say "fifty caliber". The term .50 in would only have been used to describe bolts and other hardware not munitions during world war two.
===Specifications: Armament=== 
Can anyone supply the rounds per gun (RPG) number for the standard 50 calibre gun use on this aircraft? I figure the ammo tanks were all a Mil-STD design and it should be easy to identify and supply for this section of the article. 
:As an aside. I agree with the writer of the immediately prior comment, servicemen commonly called them 50 calibre weapons, almost everywhere in the world. But that was a slang term commonly used in the USA and USAAF. The international standard terminology is ".50 in" with the metric equivalent following as required by Wikipedia. As an editor of military articles, herein, I suggest that it will do no harm to use the colloquial terms after the initial correct designation except again in the specifications section. But please don't suggest that every article is to be amended! The workload would be impossible. Just remember, also, that non-US readers are not always up with current US military colloquial terms, even very long-standing ones. Remember, too, that translators of these articles, from English, need the correct terminology to be able to translate accurately or to check facts. Lin (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the problem with what 'the enemy' called an aircraft or tank or whatever is often an issue of public morale. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Information told the public in WW2 the Japanese referred to the Beaufighter as 'the whispering death' (allegedly, in one otherwise trustworthy source, due to the quiet running of its sleeve-valve engines), the P-38 by the 'krauts' as the fork-tailed devil, and so on. Grist for the mill, if you like. There are other oddities as well; I was reading about an interview by Liddel Hart with IIRC Guderian, the latter claimed to the best of his knowledge the term Blitzkrieg was not German in origin, the implication being that it was two German words spliced together by an English speaker in the belief that if the Germans carried out a lightning war, then they must obviously themselves call it 'Blitzkrieg'. Be very careful of using alleged 'enemy' epithets for allied equipment, or alleged enemy terms or phrases; for example the Russian name 'grave for seven brothers' to describe the medium tank M3 was a spurious post-war invention to belittle the British and American supply efforts to the Soviets during WW2. The appellations "Whispering Death" or "Whistling Death" or "Fork-tail Devil", or "Flying Porcupine" are hardly likely to given to any propeller-driven combat aircraft, by ANY enemy . . . most likely something more appropriate; what's Japanese for "multiple f*@k*&g round-eyed ba*&^rds"? THAT I could believe!!~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardized munition naming

message: Can anyone supply the rounds per gun (RPG) number for the standard 50 calibre gun use on this aircraft? I figure the ammo tanks were all a Mil-STD design and it should be easy to identify and supply for this section of the article. 
:As an aside. I agree with the writer of the immediately prior comment, servicemen commonly called them 50 calibre weapons, almost everywhere in the world. But that was a slang term commonly used in the USA and USAAF. The international standard terminology is ".50 in" with the metric equivalent following as required by Wikipedia. As an editor of military articles, herein, I suggest that it will do no harm to use the colloquial terms after the initial correct designation except again in the specifications section. But please don't suggest that every article is to be amended! The workload would be impossible. Just remember, also, that non-US readers are not always up with current US military colloquial terms, even very long-standing ones. Remember, too, that translators of these articles, from English, need the correct terminology to be able to translate accurately or to check facts. Lin (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications: Armament

message: While it may be sourced to an (English-language) book, the prospect that any German ever knew this aircraft as a "screaming helldiver" is extremely remote. While one could laboriously construct such a phrase in German, it sounds utterly bizarre. (e.g. "Höllentaucher" would literally mean "hell diver", but this phrase has no real meaning in German.) As a more general matter, insofar as soldiers came up with nicknames for enemy units or equipment, they tended to make light of the enemy (e.g. "flying sewing machine", "Stalin's organ" (for the Katyusha rocket launcher), "Tommy cooker" (for the rather flammable Sherman tank), "flying pencil" (the British nickname for the slender Dornier 17 bomber) etc.), and not to imply fear of enemy prowess. This smacks of postwar bravado by some gung-ho American aviation writer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.175.183 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the problem with what 'the enemy' called an aircraft or tank or whatever is often an issue of public morale. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Information told the public in WW2 the Japanese referred to the Beaufighter as 'the whispering death' (allegedly, in one otherwise trustworthy source, due to the quiet running of its sleeve-valve engines), the P-38 by the 'krauts' as the fork-tailed devil, and so on. Grist for the mill, if you like. There are other oddities as well; I was reading about an interview by Liddel Hart with IIRC Guderian, the latter claimed to the best of his knowledge the term Blitzkrieg was not German in origin, the implication being that it was two German words spliced together by an English speaker in the belief that if the Germans carried out a lightning war, then they must obviously themselves call it 'Blitzkrieg'. Be very careful of using alleged 'enemy' epithets for allied equipment, or alleged enemy terms or phrases; for example the Russian name 'grave for seven brothers' to describe the medium tank M3 was a spurious post-war invention to belittle the British and American supply efforts to the Soviets during WW2. The appellations "Whispering Death" or "Whistling Death" or "Fork-tail Devil", or "Flying Porcupine" are hardly likely to given to any propeller-driven combat aircraft, by ANY enemy . . . most likely something more appropriate; what's Japanese for "multiple f*@k*&g round-eyed ba*&^rds"? THAT I could believe!!~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Screaming helldivers? Not bloody likely.

message: British Mustang I's were Allison-engined, and armed with 4 x 20mm cannon. I'm pretty sure under most standards of armament power, 4 x Hispano cannons is considered more powerful than 6 x .50cals, due to much higher explosive power, weight of fire, etc. I'd say that 6 x .50cals is the heaviest armament of the US service Allison engined Mustangs, not the heaviest altogether. If 6 x .50cals was more powerful than 4 x 20mm, the US wouldn't have been trying to replace the "6 x .50cal" armament with a standard "4 x 20mm" armament throughout the war. This decision was made before the war was even started, IIRC, but was foiled due to the US-made Hispanos poor reliability and the exigencies of war...they needed aircraft armed with SOMETHING, and 6 x .50cals was good enough, if not as ideal as 4 x 20mm cannon..45Colt 09:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heaviest armament" 

message: Given that the type was conceived as a ground attacker, it seems noteworthy that there were no additional protective measures against ground fire, compared to the P-51, for the pilot at least. 
Was this really the case and what was the reasoning – something along the lines of speed being the best defense? 
Grant | Talk 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No additional protection against ground fire← e.g. armor plate? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved.
Everybody agrees.
(non-admin closure)  Havelock Jones (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: North American A-36 Apache →  – The Apache name is now known to have been an unofficial name, along with Invader. The article should be named North American A-36 Mustang; see Flying magazine's editor who explained to a reader in 1944 that neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names. "The Mustang is used by the AAF in two versions: the P-51 fighter and the A-36 attack-fighter. Officially, both versions are known only as the Mustang." Since not everybody here is convinced, the name "Mustang" is far less likely to gain traction. Removing "Apache" is a compromise solution. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The USAAF had authority to assign official names to its aircraft.  If no official name was applied (and sometimes even if one was applied), the manufacturer would assign a marketing name to the aircraft.  NAA assigned the marketing name "Invader" to the P-51, with the name appearing in many NAA advertisements early in the war.  The name didn't stick, however, as the name "Mustang" was assigned by the USAAF, which was inspired by the RAF's usage of the name.  It should be noted, however, that while the RAF did call both the P-51 and A-36 "Mustang", that does not necessarily mean that the USAAF assigned the name to both the P-51 and the A-36, since the RAF had no authority to assign official USAAF names. - ZLEA T\C 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To add, pre-WWII, the US military usually only assigned designations, not names. Companies often assigned names to their airplanes, and they are generally accepted as "official" on Wikipedia for civilian aircraft. As WWII progressed, the military realized that names were a good way to obfuscate a military aircraft's role, and began naming aircraft. In most cases, they adopted already existing names, usually the manufacturer's chosen name, like Lightning for the P-38. In cases like the Mustang, they sometimes chose a name assigned by another user, which also turned out to be a great name in the P-51's case. However, the British sometimes assigned "dud" names, like "Martlet". Thankfully, the USN chose to use Grumman's choice, Wildcat, and later the RN used that name also. But sometimes the British continued using their own names, as with the T-6 Texan/Harvard. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The discussion forums are interesting; certainly I can see they conflict with Bodie's account and with Kelsey's own account. Of course, the forum discussions are not published yet in WP:SECONDARY sources, so what we have available to us on Wikipedia is not Marshall's damning of Kelsey but Bodie's placement of Kelsey at critical junctures. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 September 2021 

message: *If someone has access to Benjamin S. Kelsey's book The Dragon's Teeth, there might be an answer to the name of the aircraft. The last time I held a copy in my hands was 2009. Kelsey is the true father of this aircraft, having ordered it into being to save NAA from closing down the P-51 Mustang assembly line and dispersing the employees. I remember his book was full of crab-wise constructions, talking around the main points, but maybe he says something about "Apache" or "Invader" or "Mustang" with regard to the A-36. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The USAAF had authority to assign official names to its aircraft.  If no official name was applied (and sometimes even if one was applied), the manufacturer would assign a marketing name to the aircraft.  NAA assigned the marketing name "Invader" to the P-51, with the name appearing in many NAA advertisements early in the war.  The name didn't stick, however, as the name "Mustang" was assigned by the USAAF, which was inspired by the RAF's usage of the name.  It should be noted, however, that while the RAF did call both the P-51 and A-36 "Mustang", that does not necessarily mean that the USAAF assigned the name to both the P-51 and the A-36, since the RAF had no authority to assign official USAAF names. - ZLEA T\C 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To add, pre-WWII, the US military usually only assigned designations, not names. Companies often assigned names to their airplanes, and they are generally accepted as "official" on Wikipedia for civilian aircraft. As WWII progressed, the military realized that names were a good way to obfuscate a military aircraft's role, and began naming aircraft. In most cases, they adopted already existing names, usually the manufacturer's chosen name, like Lightning for the P-38. In cases like the Mustang, they sometimes chose a name assigned by another user, which also turned out to be a great name in the P-51's case. However, the British sometimes assigned "dud" names, like "Martlet". Thankfully, the USN chose to use Grumman's choice, Wildcat, and later the RN used that name also. But sometimes the British continued using their own names, as with the T-6 Texan/Harvard. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The discussion forums are interesting; certainly I can see they conflict with Bodie's account and with Kelsey's own account. Of course, the forum discussions are not published yet in WP:SECONDARY sources, so what we have available to us on Wikipedia is not Marshall's damning of Kelsey but Bodie's placement of Kelsey at critical junctures. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion