Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Pierre Sprey (part 3)
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)


 * All we seem to have is Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2 - no discussion there. Let's sort it out here, then. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

In the service of achieving a consensus, consider this my support for the exclusion of Sprey as a source in this article and the exclusion of any non-independent sources that suggest he was intimately involved in the A-10's development (so, the current article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Putting the Boyd book through the RSN circuit might actually be a great move. Would allow us to more definitively deal with this more than year old issue. Had to remove a lot of anti-Sprey POVing from his article just now. A broader community view might really stabilize things. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

GAU-8 Ammunition discrepancy
There seems to be a discrepancy between this article and the article for it's armament.

From this article: "The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition, but generally holds 1,174 rounds."

From GAU-8 Avenger: "The magazine can hold 1,174 rounds, although 1,150 is the typical load-out."

Not sure how to address this discrepancy. Thoughts? Gnomatique (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * From the A-10A flight manual:
 * "The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with capacity up to 1,350 rounds of percussion primed ammunition. Most aircraft have a helix installed in the drum assembly which limits the system capacity to 1,174 rounds of percussion primed ammunition."
 * From the A-10C flight manual:
 * "The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with a capacity up to 1,174 rounds of percussion primed ammunition."
 * My understanding however is that 1,150 is indeed the "typical" load, as pointed out for example by retired A-10 pilot Luke Fricke on a podcast: Fighter Pilot Podcast, episode 044 (relevant part starting approx. 22:15) quote: "typical load is 1150 rounds"
 * Also from a photo caption:
 * "Airmen from the 51st Munitions Squadron preload shop ensure the proper load-out of 1,150 rounds in each magazine."
 * Also this:
 * "A fully loaded A-10 can carry 2,000-pound and 500-pound joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMs, bombs; laser-guided JDAMs; the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missile; and, McCarthy said, 'don't ever forget the [30-millimeter GAU-8/A Avenger] gun with 1,150 rounds -- what that aircraft was built around.'"
 * So to sum up what is going on to my understanding, the A-10A started out with a max capacity of 1,350, which was reduced to 1,174 already on some aircraft. On A-10Cs (so all remaining A-10s), it appears to always be 1,174 max capacity, with 1,150 being the typical load. – Recoil (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
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! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Poor firepower"?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Warthog" & "Hog"
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Correct Flight manual
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Collateral damage problem
I think there's a problem with this text "The A-10 has been involved in killing ten U.S. troops in friendly-fire over four incidents between 2001 and 2015 and 35 Afghan civilians from 2010 to 2015, more than any other U.S. military aircraft; these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.[125]" in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments section. For one, it's vague. What does "more than any other US military aircraft" refer to? To the killing of Afghan civilians? Specifically Afghan ones? But, then, the timeframe, why that timeframe? Why is that inserted into this article? For instance just one year earlier, in '09, a B-1 killed 97 civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For instance, in '03 a F-14 killed 22 allied troops. Why is this information presented in such a narrow way completely stripped of it's context? Presumably this is information that was released by the AF at a time when, I'm sure, coincidentally, the AF was campaigning for the A-10 to be withdrawn from service? And at that time, the AF just happened to release information specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light? So why is it being presented in this article with no context, no analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Was there something unique about the A-10 in these instances? Was there some kind of flaw? Was there something special or interesting about the four friendly fire incidents or the incidents where A-10s killed Afghan civilians? Was there something unique about how the A-10 was employed in Afghanistan? Perhaps relating to the altitude, or the terrain of the country, maybe a language issue, something relating specifically to that mission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, what the heck does the following sentence, "These incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability." mean? Collateral damage issues "assessed" as being "inconclusive and insignificant" "in terms of the planes capability"... What does that mean? What is meant by "in terms of the planes capability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanccr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm an uninvolved editor - but my thoughts are that if this was widely reported, then it's worth inclusion.
 * You're better off making concrete suggestions for what should be changed rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions and making accusations. (Hohum @ ) 22:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hohum is right. The incidents are included because they were widely reported by reliable sources.  Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory. -  ZLEA  T \ C 22:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While they are rhetorical questions, I also want to know the answer to those questions. I don't have any problem including information about collateral damage caused by the A-10, but it should be done in context, and not in a misleading way.
 * It's not about how it was reported. It was actually reported skeptically, noting, for instance, that the Project on Government Oversight requested the government furnish information on collateral damage from outside.  wrt: "Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory." again, yes, it was reported skeptically, that article points out, referencing a response by the Project on Government Oversight https://web.archive.org/web/20150210231032/https://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/af-hq-declassified-and-released-incomplete-data.html but that's not the point I'm making.  The point I'm making is that the article should generally make sense.  Which, I believe, at present, it doesn't for reasons I've already stated.  I don't think it should muddy the issue, making vague statements.  And I don't think the article should present misinformation.
 * To quote wikipedia, the definition of misinformation is "Misinformation refers to false or misleading information.".
 * You can do this comically. For instance an example of popular comic misinformation is warning people about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide.  It kills people, causes untold billions of dollars in damage every year, so on and so on.  This creates the false impression that di-hydrogen monoxide is unusually damaging and dangerous when, of course, in fact, dhm is water.
 * In this case, though, I thought it was quite painfully obvious, the Air Force presents a set of facts. During a certain time period the A-10 killed more Afghan civilians than any other US military aircraft.  Taking this information out of context, as this article does, this creates the false impression that the A-10 is unique in the danger of it causing civilian collateral damage.
 * In fact, in the time period in question from 2010 to 2014, the A-10 caused the second fewest civilian casualties per sortie compared to six other aircraft, only the AC-130, which created .7 civilian casualties per sortie caused fewer casualties per sortie than the A-10. And, again, you can only say the A-10 killed the most Afghan civilians by excluding the '09 incident, and all other pre '10 incidents.  So why is this article presenting this misleading information creating the misleading impression that, because of vague wording, the A-10 could kill more allied soldiers in friendly fire incidents than any other airplane, which is false.  Why is this article creating the misleading impression that the 35 Afghan civilians killed by the A-10 between 2010 and 2015 is significant, creating the misleading impression that the A-10 causes more civilian casualties than any other US aircraft.  This is a false impression created by this paragraph.  Sadly, I'm sure it's true that the A-10 caused 35 Afghan civilian casualties over that period of time, but, in context, while sad, looking at the broader picture, you see the truth that the A-10, in fact, is not the US aircraft that is most dangerous to civilians.  Withholding that context from the reader only serves to create a false impression in the mind of the reader.  A false impression that benefited the stated goal of the US Air Force, to retire the A-10.
 * Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think that the paraphrasing, "these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.", which, at first I objected to because on the face of it it seemed to be nonsensical, looking at the source, I don't think accurately reflects the text of the source. If I'm right it's referencing:  "The data do not prove the A-10 is poorly suited to its mission, according to Dustin Walker, a spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee. "While any loss of life is a great tragedy, in the context of tens of thousands of Air Force combat missions, this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective in its primary mission, or at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents," Walker said."
 * I'd simply quote the source as saying "this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective... at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents" Fanccr (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TEXTWALL. I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make that much sense and you go off on a few tangents. Please list the sources you want to use (mentioning page numbers where relevant), preferably with quotes from them, and give a specific "change X to Y"-formatted statement. In the meantime until consensus is achieved, don't make changes to the article that now multiple editors have reverted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I cannot read peoples minds, at least not over the internet. I don't know why you rolled back my edits.  I don't know what you think was original research.  I don't know what Hohums or ZLEAs issues were either as they chose not to divulge them.  For the third time, or fifth depending if you include the edits, first, I'd like to make the section more clear.  When the section says most whatever since whenever is it referring to friendly fire fatalities or is it referring to Afghan Civilian fatalities, or both.  iirc the sourced article seems to indicate that it's the ACF, and so I tried to correct the section but someone chose to roll back those edits, for whatever reason.  Instead of someone going so far as to say this violated this policy in this way, explaining their actions, instead someone vaguely pointed at some policy and basically said figure it out with explaining anything.  Do they think the widely reported 2009 Granai Massacre is somehow original research or something?  I don't know and they seem to have no interest in explaining it.  I think the information should be presented without bias and in context, rather than parroting misleading statistics taken out of context that was used during a campaign to retire the A-10 during sequestration.  And what I feel are misleading paraphrased quotes should be corrected.  This really isn't enormously complicated.  I've tried to make a small number of modest changes, in such a way that if someone has an issue with one edit, and not with a second less controversial edit that simply reorders a sentence to eliminate something that's at best vague and at worst misleading, yet people choose to roll back any changes with only vague references to some seemingly irrelevant policy with no explanation. Fanccr (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I rolled back your edits because you didn't provide sources in the article for your claims. You have been reverted once; further efforts to restore your edits without acquiring consensus is edit warring. I provided you a clear path to convincing us that your edits are worthwhile; you did none of those things and did the one thing I encouraged you not to do. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is the same as the original source for the information. As an example, in the last case, I simply reordered the sentence to remove the ambiguity.  For the sixth time, the AF claimed that in the time period of '10 to '15 the A-10 caused the most civilian casualties, to eliminate the ambiguity I reordered the sentence to make it clear that the issue of the 10 fratricides was a different, unrelated issues, over a different timespan ('01-'15).  This is very very simple, but this seems to have become intractable, so I have raised the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Fanccr (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build an article that is informative regarding the subject. I don't see where out of context numbers regarding civilian and friendly deaths is informative about the subject. IMO it's the opposite. Such numbers would be heavily or primarily determined by the amount of missions performed and the nature of them (importantly close air support) ...that would be a good place to start as context info to avoid being misleading from being taken out of context. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Missions/Roles also OA/10
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)
 * 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)

Contentiousness of the F-35 Replacement
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Shoddy citation for the "exclusively designed for close air support" claim
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)

A-1 losses to enemy fire in Vietnam were 256, not 266.

Also it is incorrect that most losses were to small arms fire. It would be nearly impossible to down a Skyraider with small arms fire. It could be correct to say "ground fire," which in Vietnam ranged from twin 14.5mm heavy machineguns, 37mm, and larger gun batteries, and SAMs. Practically speaking, even a 14.5mm would have a tough time with a Skyraider.

256 USAF and Navy A-1s were lost to groundfire, and another 10 to other causes. The Vietnamese Air Force lost a total of 255. This latter number should be noted in the article. Sciacchitano (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

conflicting weight in specifications
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)


 * 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)

conflicting information
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)
 * . Thanks for noting that, taken care of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Friendly
What is the point of describing the supported forces as "friendly"? Is there someone who might get confused and think an air force is providing close air support to enemy troops? This does not improve clarity, it is simply childish writing. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Childish writing" is not enough of a reason to remove it. Do you think the inclusion of "friendly" might cause more confusion for the average reader? -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason to remove it is that succinct language should be preferred to flowery language that does not add anything to the understanding. See . Do you think the average reader might be confused and think the air force is providing close support for the enemy? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Flowery is perhaps a flowery way of describing clear phrasing. Wikipedia is not written for experts, so some accommodation for the unacquainted reader is worthwhile. As you are a newer editor, I encourage you to review Make technical articles understandable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. Did you read the article I linked to? Or this one ?
 * "Flowery" is unclear phrasing, the opposite of clear phrasing, Flowery language is the hallmark of academic writing, which makes technical topics (assuming this is a technical article - a highly doubtful proposition in itself) LESS clear and LESS approachable to the lay reader, not more so. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone else seems to think it's not flowery. It's one word and does nothing but make something technical abundantly clear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Everyone else" is one other editor, who isn't explictly opposed to removing it, just asked why. It's just one word, indeed, so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to removing it, when in fact it does not making anything clearer. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am explicitly opposed to removing it. I strongly disagree with the notion that "friendly" is flowery language.  In this case, "friendly" is intended to, and absolutely does, make it abundantly clear which ground troops are referred to in the sentence. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, So you think that without 'friendly' someone might be confused and think the air force is providing close support to the enemy ground troops? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, yes. Readers with dyslexia (of which I have a self-diagnosed minor case) can, in fact, be confused by the lack of "friendly" and may have to reread the sentence to understand what it's trying to say.  It is because of this that we should not remove words that serve to clarify the sentence, so long as they do not unreasonably detract from the clarity for the average reader, which this case certainly does not. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It clarified which troops the CAS applies to, i.e. supporting vs. attacking. But moving "enemy" to earlier in sentence may do the same thing. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you think people might be confused and think the air force is providing support to enemy troops? It's ridiculous. Look at other articles about CAS aircraft like Sukhoi Su-25- there's none of this "supporting friendly troops by attacking enemy forces" nonsense, its obvious and not needed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't try to put words other people's month. You don't have to reply to every comment. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you see the irony of 'You don't have to reply to every comment' in a reply to my comment?
 * I am not putting any words in your mouth, I'm asking you what you think the addition of "friendly" and "enemy' adds here, a situation in which it should be obvious that "Support" is for your forces and not enemy forces. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is only my 3rd comment to this section. A little earlier I removed friendly and kept enemy in the Lead. One should be enough. Regards &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your version looks much better. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)