Talk:Douglas A-20 Havoc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proper Title

Why is this named Boston instead of Havoc? While it is true the first deliveries became named Boston (which obviously isn't the name the French Air Force intended to give them), it looks as if the majority were produced under the Havoc name, and that was its name in USAF service. Kd5mdk 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

In light of that fact, perhaps a move and redirect is appropriate? I'd be happy to do it if there's consensus, although it wouldn't surprise me to know you and I are the only two people watching this page ;) —chris.lawson (talk) 8 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

And we can see how well I watch my watchpage... Well, if nobody else feels like commenting I guess we are a concensus. Anybody who wishes to speak up should do so between now and whenever chris.lawson does it. :) Kd5mdk 09:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"A-20" is a US Army designation code and "Boston" is a British name, so the present title is inconsistent. It should be moved to either "A-20 Havoc" or "Boston bomber". Bastie 19:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the correct title should be "Douglas DB-7" since it saw service with many, many Allied airforces. A-20 would be USAAF only. Boston would be all the Commonwealth airforces. Havoc was originally coined for RAF night fighter variants, but also used to describe A-20s. The Soviets, the largest user, probably called them A-20s, but I have seen Russian cutaways calling them Bostons. End of the day, Douglas called it the DB-7, so that is what we should call it.

We should also recategorize it as US Bombers 1940-49, not 1930-39. It was initially developed in the late '30s, but it didn't see action until the '40s and is a WWII plane. - jsimkins 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

P-70 Nighthawk

Anyone know if the "Nighthawk" moniker for the P-70 was official? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not, but your earlier edit was incorrect. The night-fighters were known as the Havoc by Commonwealth airforces and the P-70 by the US. Your edit makes it sound like the Commonwealth called it the P-70. - jsimkins 09:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I classified this as start, the main impediment to B-class (or higher) being the somewhat fractured nature of the article. A longer section on the development history of the original aircraft is desireable, as it is now essentially an admittedly excellent list of variants. To move up the scale, the original (or most important) variant of the aircraft needs to have a complete article. Carom 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to say which is the most important variant. The USSR was the heaviest user of the aircraft (in several variants), but there is next to no information on USSR use that I know of. I would say the best combination of original and most important would be the RAF Boston III and IIIA, but I am biased (my grandfather flew for No.88 squadron, which is why I have accumulated so much knowledge on this rather unknown aircraft). Jsimkins 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I personally prefer the article as a general discussion of the DB-7 rather than something on one variant, primarily because of the large number of variants and airforces that used the DB-7. I agree that it does need help though. I would envisage getting this article to the next stage requiring a complete article on the history and service of the DB-7 as a whole and keeping the variant information similar to how it is (some variants could use more work, and some of the info could be moved out to other sections, and it would probably benefit from some grouping as the length is rather hard to digest). The next stage would include articles on its use with different airforces, so the entire entry would contain in-depth and fully featured information on the DB-7 in all its iterations, detailed information on its service with different countries and then succinct information on different variants. Jsimkins 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Can we get a citation for one of the military historians finding this to be the third most important twin-engine warplane of WWII?

I will try and track it down as I was the one that added that line. I can assure you it is accurate, I just need to remember where I read it... Jsimkins 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This claim seems silly. The P-38 Lightning, B-25 Mitchell, Messerschmitt Bf 110 and Petlyakov Pe-2 were all built in significantly larger quantities, to name a few, and the numbers on at least the 110 and Pe-2 are greater even if one lumps the A-26 in with this bird. If this claim can't be documented and justified, it should be removed. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a rather meaningless and unencyclopedic claim and shouldn't be included. If anyone was able to find a supporting quote, all it would prove is that authors limited knowledge of the war outside their own POV. The Mosquito was more important, not only in numbers but in concept but how do you define important? The Betty was an important IJN bomber, the Ju 88 was an important German bomber and both were more important to their respective services numerically than the DB-7 was to Russia, the UK or the US.NiD.29 (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As the text was removed sometime in 2007, it is rather moot now.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of help

Someone needs to take the time and effort to restructure this article, it's lay out is horrbile. --Signaleer 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No numbers except the total produced, very few dates of who ordered what, how many, when, or deliveries, no first flight...the name of the article is the least problem here.--Buckboard 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A concern that I see, is the fact that the article has a horrible structure and again, there are important subjects within the article that are missing or very weak, plus there are no sources or references cited.

--Signaleer 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Douglas DB-7 → A-20 Havoc — A-20 was the official designation for this aircraft. DB-7 was the non-US military designation for direct purchase. Even the RAF renamed there Bostons to Havoc when later models became available. Also to follow Wikipedia Aviation project naming policy —Davegnz 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - I agree with request to change the name to A-20 Havoc and the reasoning, suggested by Davegnz. -Signaleer 05:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree The DB-7 is the Douglas manufacturer designation and it was used without change. The aircraft in question did have a lot of different names and DB-7 is the only constant one. A-20 Havoc is by far not common usage. --Denniss 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The usual parctice for American aircraft is to use the name assigned by the US military if it was used in regular US service. As the A-20 did serve with the USAAF, I don't see a good justification here for not using that name. - BillCJ 07:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The request to change DB-7 to the A-20 Havoc is a logical and conventional means to identify an aircraft by its most commonly used name. Although the designation "DB-7" predates the USAAC A-20 designation, the protocol for Wikipedia indicates that the most common name should predominate; contrary to the above comment by another editor, I contend that "A-20" was the most commonly used name, even in other air forces. However, it would be prudent if and when the name change is implemented to clearly document the use of other designations. FWIW Bzuk 13:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment - The T-6 Texan is not listed as the "North American Harvard", even though it served in many Commonwealth ond other air forces under that designation. Likewise, the Hawker Siddely Harrier is not under "AV-8 Harrier", even though it's known as much by that desingation, and served with the USMC and Thai Navies as such. I could go one with many examples. However, the A-22 Maryland should be moved to Martin Maryland (I just moved it), as, although tested by the US army, it did not enter US service. Likewise, the A-23 Baltimore is not significant enough to be on it's own, but should be merged with the Martin Baltimore page. Convesely, a case could be made for separte DB-7 and A-20 pages. - BillCJ 07:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have WIki use both names?

DB-7 is just a prevalent name, one would think it should have both, but the subordinate simply state the chosen main page.

OR, use DB for foreign service, and A-20 for USAAF service. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We do use both names. Douglas DB-7 is a redirect to A-20 Havoc, per WPAIR naming conventions for US aircraft. THe Infobox and Lead sentence both mention the DB-7 designation. What more do you want?

I'm getting really tired of people instisting we ignore the naming conventions for US aircraft solely because they served in European, usually British, air arms, while at the same time they show no inclination to do the same for British aircraft which served in other, usually US, services. Granted, there are fewer of the latter than the former. The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is not at AV-8A Harrier, nore does it have AV-8 as part of the article name, and I've not seen many editors trying to get this changed. Note that the AV-8B and Harrier GR5/7/9 were originally at the same page, but were split up because there is a great deal of variation, esp in avionics, between the two, and the article was getting a bit long.

This article has not reached the point where splitting it up by national service lines is feasible. Maybe at some point in the future it will. That said, you are welcome to propose a move or split of this page, or even to propse that the naming conventions be changed so as not to bruise the egos of those American designed-and-built aircraft that served in British service by revealing the closely-guarded secret of their origins to the rest of the world. - BillCJ (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL - actually a lot of US aircraft in the early war were built-for and further refined for the RAF and were first used in action by them before Pearl Harbor. Prior to this, the RAF orders far exceeded the US ones - (Lockheed were almost bankrupt and were saved by the British order for Hudsons), so the RAF got what they wanted, in terms of modifications and improvements, as before Lend-Lease they were paying hard-cash for everything. The US forces benefited from this RAF-input when they entered the war themselves.

BTW, the 'A-20 Havoc' article name is fine - Havoc was a British name first anyway, later adopted for the US versions.

G forces

How many G forces can a fully bomb laden A-20 pull before the wings rip off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.15 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The plural of g is g (note lower case) so the question should read "how much g could the boston withstand before the wings ripped off? I don't know the answer but it is likely to be around 4 to 6 g.Petebutt (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably closer to twice that. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

First flight

The first flight was on 23 January 1939? Is this correct? Drutt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

loaded vs mtow in specifications

how is loaded weight higher than mtow? --98.246.60.196 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparable?

Is it possible to compare different types of aircrafts? Me-210 is heavy fighter, while Pe-2 is dive bomber. A-20 is horisontal bomber. Ходок (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections to A-20 page

DB-7C This was a Dutch Naval Air Service (MLD-Marine-Luchtvaartdienst)version not NEIAF ordered for anti-shipping operations in the Dutch East Indies a total of 80 aircraft were ordered 48 DB-7C's and 32 DB-7B's, the DB-7C was to have two interchangable noses a solid stafer nose with 4 x 20mm cannon and the standard bomb aimers nose, this version was to have automatic deployable lafe rafts (because of the low level Anti-Shipping role) and mounts to carry torpedoes from the factory, as the Dutch East Indies fell before these aircraft were build they were only build with the standard bombaimers nose and all 48 went to the USSR, The Dutch took credits for the undelivered DB-7C's for B-25's with longer range for operations from Australia over the Dutch East Indies,,the 32 DB-7B's were an interim order to satisfy Dutch needs while waiting for there DB-7C's of the 32 aircraft 6 reached Java before it fell on the "Kota Baroe", these were captured by the Japanese and several were flown by the Japanese, one was operated by the Japanese Naval Aircraft test unit (serial AL904) and recovered at Atsugi Naval airbase after the war and several were operated by the Japanese Army Aircraft test unit of the remaining 26 aircraft 22 arrived in Australia on board "Mapia" - 6 DB-7B's, "Tabinta" - 3 DB-7B's, "Tarakan" - 5 DB-7B's , "Tossari" - 3 DB-7B's , "Weltevroden" - 5 DB-7B's as "Refuge aircraft" and were absorbed into the RAAF and the remaining 4 DB-7B's were returned to the US to be used as training aircraft. Sydhuey (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statement

" first entered service with RAF Bomber Command in 1941. Their first operational use was not until February 1942"

While this may be technically true for Bomber Command, the statement implies that this was the first RAF use of the aircraft. However, White's AI Radar lists kills by Havocs in Fighter Command in April 1941, implying they reached the UK some time before this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of Flight articles dated March 1941 on the RAF Boston/Havoc here: [1] [2] and a February 1941 one here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.47 (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly fixed with ref Irondome (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Douglas A-20 Havoc/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article's structure should be based on broader categories than the variants. As always, I recommend using the structure recommended at WP:Air/PC. Also, needs more references, as it currently has no inline citations and only has a link to Joe Baugher's website at the bottom of the page. Already contains infobox, specs, standard footer. Karl Dickman talk 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Operational history

The operational history section does not include the USAAC even though the lead says the US was a primary user. Unless this info is in another article, it should be added here. Also, the subsections in this section should be ordered with the biggest user first and the ordering in the infobox should be changed to match MB 00:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As wikipedia is a work in progress it is probably nobody has written an American operational section, if you have reliable references your are welcome to start it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas A-20 Havoc. 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/20111118085356/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/history/douglasboston.cfm to http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/douglasboston.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources for specifications

Hello,

I noticed that the source for the specifications is given as War Thunder. Though War Thunder undoubtedly makes a significant effort towards historical accuracy, I'm not sure the specifications are 100% historically accurate. The top speed given in the Wikipedia article right now is in fact significantly higher than the top speed given on other websites (http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/a20_17.html and http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=113) and even somewhat higher than that on War Thunder's own Wiki http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=A-20G-25Havoc. I believe we should use a source other than War Thunder and change the Specifications section accordingly.

Sorry if this is in error, F16falcona46 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what War Thunder is, but might the National USAF museum be considered a more authoritative source? Here's their article on the A-20G, with specs:

Douglas A-20G Havoc.

Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've switched the specs to Francillon's McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 - hopefully that is reliable enough.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not familiar with rules...trying to get ahold of editor of A-20 Havoc for a piece of Trivia. DIANA CYRUS BIXBY was flying this aircraft on January 2, 1955, in bad weather when she crashed into the sea off Loreta, Baja California, Mexico...apparently right after finishing her shots for the classic Sci-Fi film "This Island Earth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:C000:4BD0:28B4:8B30:8B63:ABDA (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas A-20 Havoc. 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/20080224010405/http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/douglas/a-20.htm to http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/douglas/a-20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

P-61 Links

If you are even going to mention the Northrop P-61 Black Widow nightfighter, then you need to make that into a wikilink! Many readers have doubtless never heard of a P-61 Black Widow. 47.215.180.7 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why the comment as it appears you have already linked the article yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Also not sure where you gett the idea that people"have never heard of the P-61 Black Widow". I assure you that anyone with more than trifling knowledge is well aware of the Black Widow. It hardly counts as an Obscure WWII Aircraft.

64.222.88.242 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Engine specs in infobox

Is there some reason that the infobox doesn't say anything at all about what engine is used or the power rating? Usually it does. The reader has to dig through the article to find that the R-1830 and R-2600 are mentioned, but only in random places. I gather that originallyy it was fitted with 1,000hp R-1830s and the "standard" engine was a 1,600hp R-2600, with a variant using a 1,700hp ugrade, but for all I know there were several others not mentioned. Not only should each variants engine and power be clearly stated, but the most common variant(s) shouuld be listed in the infobox, including engine type and power ratiing for those like me, who came here to see what engine the plane used. Its annoying to have to hunt through the text for basic info like that, especially when the even the text isn't very clear on it.

64.222.88.242 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I presume you missed the bit that says "Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-2600-23 Twin Cyclone 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 1,600 hp (1,200 kW) each" ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)