Talk:Pointblank directive

message: Wasnt there something about shooting bailed out pilots in the parachutes or those that managed to crashland in this "directive"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely. That would go against the Geneva Conventions. It is illegal to fire upon a pilot or other aviator in distress, as one would be while hanging on a parachute, enemy or not, the exception would be if he/she was firing back at you, perhaps with a handgun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downed pilots 

message: Mugs2109 you added 
Which source are you referring to? The source used (Hansell p. 158) is the same as point 9 on the page. BUT and we have not qualified that the list is not that of the CBO (which Hansell says was not an official designation 158) but one slightly modified by the British Air Ministry. Hansell goes into further detail on p. 229. --PBS (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation systems in general 

message: user:Mugs2109 you made an edit in which you asked some questions and have raised some others.
"was the code name for the primary portion" what do you mean by primary portion?
"How could the operation order Harris and Spaatz (the operation wasn't a commander or order)" Of course not Harris and Spaatz were issued with directives and this should be made clear. But it is not clear to me if there was just one strategic directive known Casablanca directive as then a later Pointblank directive as the code name for the Casablanca Conference was POINTBLANK,  so the Casablanca directive and a POINTBLANK directive could be one and the same thing (Air Chief Harris, Arthur T. Harris. Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945. p. 196)
It is not clear to me why you have added "during Operation Pointblank." to the images and then asked for a citation to prove it.
It is not clear to me why you have replaced the list that was in the article taken from a reliable on line source with a slightly different one (Is it from a British list to an American one?). BTW AFACT the page numbers given for that citation (185, 242) are not correct as neither seems to contain the list listed.
To "The Eighth Air Force gradually increased its strength. Increasing the number of units in action, and testing various strategies of bomber defence." you added "irrelevant? [citation required] and a grammar template" Please explain what you mean.
The Battle of the Ruhr you added "Clarifyme|this implies that the Battle of the Rurh was 'Area Bombardment', but a reference needs identified of that implication|date=December 2007" Surly the link is enough so that there is no doubt about it.
Why did you change the the quote from the Official UAAF history concludes its account of Big Week? It was sourced.
Why did you combine the  Notes and References section as the combined section is very messy. What is needed is short citations and full references.
--PBS (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 12 December 2008

message: As Sebastian Cox in a prefix to Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945 By Air Chief Harris, Arthur T. Harris
notes on page xix "Where as the original draft had explicitly directed Bomber Command to aim at the selective attack of the aircraft industry and ball-bearing manufacture, Harris had succeeded in influencing the final version ... the explicit reference to Bomber Command's role stated 'While the forces of the British Bomber Command will be employed in accordance with their main aim in the general disorganisation of German industry their action will be designed as far as is practicable to be complementary to the operations of the Eight Air Force'"
As Bomber Harris understood it "Moral had been dropped and I was now required to proceed with a general 'disorganisation' of German industry giving certain aspects of it such as U-boat building ... and so forth, which gave me a very wide range of choice and allowed me to attack pretty well any German industrial city of 100,000 or above." (Harris Bomber Offensive, Start of Chapter 7, Page 144)
Cox goes on to quote the Official RAF Historian "When later the Air Saff began to complain that Sir Arthur Harris was not taking part in the attack on the German Air Force, the only had themselves to blame, because they could have issued a much clear directive on 10 June [1943]. Cox goes on to say it was not really a black and white fight between Harris and the Staff as Portal was asking in in August when Harris would start the Battle of Berlin and Bottomley thought that limited attacks on Berlin were desirable. It was just that Harris "could justly claim that in fighting the Battle of Berlin he was loyally executing the policy laid down by his superiors."
--PBS (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Harris and the operation

message: I reverted the edits to this page today because despite requests to do so user:Mugs2109 keeps making substantial changes to the page without discussing such changes. While there is nothing wrong with a bold edit, one that edit has been reversed discussion should take place on the talk page to agree changes and reach a consensus. --PBS (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 24 and 25 June 2009

message: Was the object solely to bomb the means of production of fighters (and their bases) or did it also include drawing the fighter force into combat against bombers and their escorts?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on object of Operation 

message: There are problems with the dates given and even the initial mission statement, Pointblank was initially much broader in scope than the defeat of the German air force.  I did a small rewrite of the introduction, but the article needs serious, sustained work.  Perhaps the previous suggestion is the best route, since the Combined Bomber Offensive page is much more well-developed.rpbird (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in Serious Need of Fact Checking and Re-write

message: Next to nothing has been done to this article since my comment on this page a little over 2 years ago. So I have merged most of the text of this into Combined Bomber Offensive (much of it was a duplicate), removed that text from here and moved this article to Pointblank directive. -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pointblank directive. 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/20121013052725/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.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) 08:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified