File talk:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg

=Combat versions= The C1, D1, G1, H1, & J1 commerce straffers were all significant subseries ( not the hypenated blocks) in the Pacific. The D2 and G-12 were significant interim armament modification ordered by the AAF IN MID-1943 In advance of the planned H &J series. The J2 was a factory designed straffer. These three versions were used in most combat theaters and the D2 was favored also by the USSR combat units and by the RCAF RTU mission which acquired refurbished MTO returns. The SWPA modified a few H series as night fighters/ night intruders.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02A:20AE:94E9:D51A:9E2F:F0CF (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

=Primary Users= the ordered list of : AAF RCAF RAF USN Is not factual and in fact, conflicts with better information in the article.

The AAF was the primary user. the collective commonwealth nations were in the same relative magnitude as the USSR AND USMC. The USN was not an operational user, conducting some trials with a scant few G & H series (see article). The RCAF differed from other Commonwealth nations in that it conducted moderately scaled OTU/RTU operations in North America. China was a more significant combat user however the numbers are somewhat masked by composite units and in-theater transfers. The NEI Important to the B-25 program and was a moderate user throughout. recommend: AAF USMC Commonwealth Nations USSR ( Spelled out appropriately) see Avery, Norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02A:20AE:94E9:D51A:9E2F:F0CF (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
This is a photograph from 1942? The one guy is wearing a pocket protector and I thought they weren't invented until the late 40s. Also the quality and color of the photograph seems to be from a later era. James 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had that same reaction. It looks like such a modern image. Algr 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the original low-res pic from the U.S. gov archive .  The featured pic used the high-res 20mb tiff file and some touching up. Not sure about the pocket protectors.   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh...I'm not sure that I see a pocket protector. More like a bulgy breast pocket.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 08:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo was a 4x5-inch transparency. Even in 1942, with slow film, that kind of transparency size could produce extraordinarily sharp images. And good color film was certainly available in 1942, although it was expensive. Note that this is a time exposure, which is why the plant looks mostly empty. If you look carefully at different parts of the photo, you can see the "ghosts" of people who moved as the photo was exposed. Since they moved, they aren't clearly visible, which means that a busy factory looks almost deserted in the photo. Agateller (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the last B-25 was delivered Aug 1945, and the plant closed the day after the war ended. Also, the 48-star flag was in use from 1912 to 1959. Agreed though, it does look more recent. Neat picture. aechols 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are they painted yellow all over? Even the ones with insignia.

Zinc Chromate primer? yes; and it is a real photo of late '42  to mid-43 vintage. Several plants applied the national insignia before the camouflage colors.

How?
How would one access the original transparency of this image in the gov't archive to scan it in the first place? joepa T 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)