Talk:1964 T-39 shootdown incident

B-class review
Clarifying on point B2...I'm not sure exactly what could be added, but the article seems a little...rushed, perhaps? Expanding a bit on the aftermath of the incident might help, perhaps...? - The Bushranger (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet controlled East-Germany?
No doubt about it. But then it should be written "US controlled Wiesbaden". That would be ridiculous so I am going to erase "Soviet controlled". Pedron (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, some folks are still so "neutral" and "propaganda free"... thank you for understanding. --Gvy (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to see Soviet-revisionism is alive and well on Wikipedia.


 * West Germany was an independent state with a democratically-elected government. East Germany was a puppet of the USSR, in which Soviet armed forces had forcibly put down attempts at democratization.  These are not debatable opinions, they are proven facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.108.53 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tail number
Is the tail number of the aircraft involved known? If so, it needs adding to the article, which can then have an entry in the List of aircraft by tail number. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tagged all the related articles with the tail number, 62-4448. Mark Sublette (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Mark SubletteeMark Sublette (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

cause?
What was the official verdict as to why the plane entered East German airspace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.238.85 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That map
While I found the article quite interesting, what spoilt it for me was the map. To have any sort of map is a boon, but it needs to have a bit more detail to fully play it's part. I say 'a bit' because if it has too much, it then becomes cluttered. But if Erfurt or Vogelsburg, or both, were added, it would give better orientation than is currently shown. The dot, which is already there, which I presume marks the crash site, should be worded as such; an added bonus would be a dotted line with arrows from west Germany to indicate the flight path of the doomed aircraft (if known). As it is mentioned more than once, it might be wise to also mark Berlin. This could well spark some interest and therefore expand the article, including why it was decided to recover the wreckage to the "Großstadt" and not back across the E/W border which seems to be considerably closer.

I would add these suggestions myself, but do not have the expertise

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cold War Deaths
Article says "All three died,[4] becoming some of the few confirmed direct casualties of the Cold War."

Well, yeah, if you ignore the proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America and Africa, in which hundreds of thousands lost their lives. I'm amending it to add "...in Europe." 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "direct casualties" is the important part of that sentence. The proxy wars were indirect. Your edit implies that there was direct USSR/USA combat outside Europe - fortunately there was, because otherwise it would be baffling. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And more importantly, those actions were very much "hot" - not part of the Cold War in general.50.111.26.183 (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1964 T-39 shootdown incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130606035346/http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19640129&id=DRUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5HwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4775,4839495 to http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19640129&id=DRUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5HwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4775,4839495

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1964 T-39 shootdown incident. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130606035346/http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19640129&id=DRUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5HwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4775,4839495 to http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19640129&id=DRUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5HwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4775,4839495

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems suspicious
A plane with three crew onboard just happens to take off and mistakenly fly towards and into East Germany, and it just so happens that their radio equipment fails, so they can't hear or respond to hails warning them? Seems to me if the situation was reversed, the automatic assumption by the West would be that the crew was trying to defect. It's possible that that was happening here, but it was a clumsy attempt, and the Soviets responded by shooting the aircraft down. It would have been a windfall for them if the defection had succeeded (of course, real conspiracy theorists would suggest that the US actually shot down the aircraft to prevent them from successfully deserting...that of course, would require you to treat the Soviet response about firing a warning shot, etc, as mere fabrication on the part of the US, but I don't think conspiracy theorists would have trouble swallowing that, considering some of the other stuff they believe! AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk Pages are not for your idle 'chatter' and opinions. They are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of articles - and especially not for the discussion of the topic outside of that. see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP 50.111.26.183 (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypoxia?
I'm guessing there's no sources for this but I wonder if this was a hypoxia related crash, like Helios Airways Flight 522. That would explain the lack of radio comms, huge navigation mistake, and no response (allegedly) to the interceptors. Anyway I think it is great that 53 years on some of us are still remembering those crew in a small way. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

More aftermath?
The "Aftermath" section of this article (and, indeed, the whole article) stops short just four days after the incident. Was there an investigation? Apology? Reparations? Was any cause hypothesized? Even if nothing further happened, the article would be improved by saying so. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already states radio failure may have been the cause.50.111.9.165 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)