Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

message: There has been a dispute on this article about the inclusion of The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard by James G. Burton as a source.  One editor even called the source "a Sprey propaganda piece".  I vaguely remember a discussion or dispute regarding Sprey in the past.  Is there a consensus on Sprey's involvement in the A-10 program? - ZLEA T\C 12:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: All we seem to have is Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey - no discussion there. Let's sort it out here, then. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the discussion emanates from a series of YouTube videos by a British man going by LazerPig (the most relevant can be found here). Mr. Pig explicitly mentions this article in his videos and the subsequent discussion of Sprey on this talk page made it into another video. He accurately pointed out that the version of the article extant at the time of the first videos presented demonstrably false information via citations to the Boyd book. The outcome of that discussion was to remove the more exceptional claims cited via the Boyd book, almost all of which were traceable to claims made first by Sprey or attributed to him in the book. Burton's book, also critically addressed by the anthropomorphic swine, is mustered twice as a citation in this article. While I agree with LazerPig's assessment of Burton being something of an unreliable source for exceptional claims, both citations to Burton in this article are for very basic details. If we can find better sources for the facts Burton's book supports, this would be preferable. Additionally, it would be best if we actually had the pages from Burton's book for the facts cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also,  We have more discussion in the threads above (ignoring the Bean one). I think the consensus was leaning against inclusion of Sprey as a member of the A-10s development in this article, though his claims should be addressed elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that prev conversation brought up a lot of the issues, but we didn't get a conclusive consensus there. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree. There seems to be a dearth of independent evidence presented so far that he was involved to any serious degree. None of my contemporary paper books that deal with the A-10 mention him. If new sources arise I am happy to change that opinion, though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole pro-Sprey/anti-Sprey thing seems very odd. Seems there's people on both sides attempting to use WP to push their POV. We need to be careful to be neutral. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think most of the WikiProject regular editors here are relying on WP:RS, there do seem to have been at least a few others who seem to have a "dog in that race" for one reason or another. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Those were the ones I was referring too. I agree with removing the questioned source if it's unreliable, but I'm not quite sure how that was determined. Did it go through RSN? BilCat (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre Sprey (part 3) 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Fairchild Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II_-_32156159151.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 24, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-02-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: The article says "The A-1 Skyraider also had poor firepower."  An attack plane with poor firepower?  What did it use to attack?  This calls out for more explanation. 
Also, while I'm typing, where did the nickname "Warthog" come from?  I had long understood it to be a reference to the A-10's ungainly appearance, but haven't seen a reliable source for any explanation. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The A- attack designation only specifies an aircraft's role, not necessarily how effective it is at that role.  Times change. The A-1 was from a previous era. Do some reading/research. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that it could use some clarification. Is this "poor firepower" referring to internal armament, like cannon? Is it referring to the amount of ordinance it could carry being to low? Is it referring to an inability to mount more modern, harder hitting or more accurate (or both) ordinance? "Poor firepower" is a bit too broad a term. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Saying the Skyraider had inadequate or poor firepower is simply incorrect, and the starement either needs an explanation or removal. The A-1 had adequate firepower for the time and place, and it was superior to the available alternatives. One hopes that a replacement aircraft would be improved, but that is not the same as saying the A-1's firepower was "poor."  What is correct to say is the A-10 has much improved firepower, and a broader mission - the Skyraider was never intended for the same anti-armor role as the A-10, for instance, though it could destroy armor with bombs if need be, and the A-10 obviously carries a wider array of improved ordinance, most or all of unavailable during the Vietnam and Korean Wars.  Simply put, as a close air support aircraft and as a bomber for certain types of missions, the A-1 was superior to other aircraft in the USAF inventory at the time. Sciacchitano (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sourced statement that the A-1 had poor firepower is referring to the time of the Vietnam War.  While the A-1 (or rather, AD at the time) may have been an exceptional attack aircraft in terms of firepower when it first saw combat in Korea, it was a different story over a decade later in Vietnam.  Unless you have a source contradicting the one in the article, or you have evidence that the source is unreliable, the statement should remain.  We can't remove sourced content based on WP:OR alone. - ZLEA T\C 19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poor firepower"? 

message: Usually in Wikipedia articles about thing known by multiple names, all the names are near the top and in bold. Should the same thing be done for "Warthog" and "Hog" here? CommandProMC (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that the page already says the names "Warthog" and "Hog", but they are shown more down and not bold. CommandProMC (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the manual of style guidelines for when bold should be used. I don't think Warthog counts in this instance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Warthog" & "Hog" 

message: Is the publication TO 1A-10C-1 the correct and reasonable current flight manual for the A-10C?
As found here https://kupdf.net/download/t-o-1a-10c-1-flight-manual-usaf-series-a-10c-2012_58f4d870dc0d60a105da981b_pdf
Or is this source not authoritative?
Thanks. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:C100:2D56:65E4:1309:43E5:AB92 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the same document has been issued several times with several revisions under the same name. Not looking at yours (sorry, don't trust PDF hosting sites) but chances are probably not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Not looking at the document either, but glancing at the link and seeing "2012", I'm assuming it's the same 2012 manual that keeps popping up in various places. It is "reasonable" in that it is A-10C (not A-10A), but since 2012 numerous developments have been made in terms of systems for the A-10, so it's not "current". – Recoil (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Flight manual 

message: I may have missed it but this article doesn't seem to cover what missions/roles the A-10 fills, e.g. combat search and rescue, forward air controller (airborne), strike control and reconnaissance, counter air and counter sea, close air support, special operations support (which are primary missions, which secondary?).  Also the article doesn't seem to have good coverage of the OA/10, though I don't know the exact details about the OA/10.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources covering the OA-10 (not OA/10, US Tri-Service designations are hyphenated), or any of the other missions, feel free to expand the article. - ZLEA T\C 23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missions/Roles also OA/10 

message: In the article it is said that F-35 replacement of A-10s is contentious "both within the USAF and political circles," yet there seems to be no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog. 75.132.237.67 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are those within the USAF who want to replace the A-10 with the F-35, and there are those who want to keep the A-10 in service for the foreseeable future.  The statement, which is expanded upon in this section, accurately describes the state of the A-10's retirement plan. - ZLEA T\C 22:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

text: As far as wikipedia goes, if a WP:RS states something, we can publish it to the article (Example if a reliable source states that there is no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog).  If there are contrasting viewpoints in other media you can add it in.  Deciding to publish our own viewpoints is WP:OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentiousness of the F-35 Replacement 

message: the citation (which contradicts all of the other citations, including the design of the A-10 and its gun to kill tanks, on this page) that the A-10 was "exclusively designed for Close Air Support" comes from a 2016 book that doesn't cite its sources and is written by a guy whose entire other archive is WWII history. Can this be deleted since it's clearly wrong (as contradicted by the other citations on the page) and is just generally a bad citation? 174.67.177.185 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoddy citation for the "exclusively designed for close air support" claim 

message: in specifications it states the max takeoff weight is 46,000 lb (20,865 kg), but in the CAS mission the weight is stated as 47,094 lb (21,361 kg). is this intended or a mistake? Lighningknight134 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The aircraft's maximum in flight weight (51,000 lb) is higher than it's maximum taxi, takeoff, and landing weight (46,000 lbs) according to the flight manual. The obvious answer to how this is possible would be in-flight refueling I reckon. – Recoil16 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflicting weight in specifications 

message: in the description of the aircraft under the picture it says introduced october 1977 but in the first paragraph it says introduced 1976 Meat is the best (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for noting that, taken care of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The 1976 date is when the first production A-10 was delivered. The 1977 date is when the first A-10 combat unit became operational (fielding). The fielding date is when an aircraft is introduced into service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflicting information