Talk:Kenneth M. Taylor

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

A very will written article, superbly referenced and a fun read. I flushed it out with a few categories but otherwise it is an example of some of the best work I've seen from the WPMILHIST task force. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — MrPrada (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article and adding the cats. Good work to those that started the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Statement on Japanese Aircraft Types
In the paragraph describing Taylor's second engagement, it is first stated that he and his wingman found themselves tangled up with a group of "Zekes," and then immediately goes on to say that Taylor was wounded by a rear-seat gunner. The engagement supposedly ends when the Japanese break off to return to their carrier. A "Zeke" is a single-place fighter, with no rear-seat gunner, so either the type of Japanese aircraft is wrong or the sequence of events is confused--of this I am certain. I also think it unlikely, though not impossible, that half a dozen Japanese fighter pilots would leave the scene in the face of two P-40s, which they probably knew they could out-maneuver.

Can this be clarified?

Terry J. Carter (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I clicked on Talk for the same reason. As the first hit is described as exploding, that limits it to a single possibility, the 20mm guns of the Zero. None of the Japanese aircraft involved carried explosive rounds for rear guns, at least as far as I am aware. This statement is definitely wrong, but none of the references are readable online. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a copy of George Welch's combat report. Contrary to the oft-cited statement that he and Taylor took off without permission, they were requested to scramble by Fighter Command HQ.

Welch is specific that they saw no fighters. He said the planes he engaged were "retractable gear dive bombers" which translates to Nakajima B5N ("Kate") torpedo planes. He also said they saw fixed landing gear aircraft of a type unknown to them--the Aichi D3A later called Val dive bomber. However, reconstruction of events (including Osamu tagaya in "Aichi 99 Val Units of WW2") concludes that most of Welch and Taylor's were in fact dive bombers rather than torpedo planes.

B TillmanBtillman (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)16 Jun 13

Regarding the idea that Welch and Taylor were told not to take off, this refers to their second sortie. It was in the first that they were vectored by radio to the Japanese Vals at Ewa. I have no evidence that they were told not to take off in the second, although it could be true.

Ray@Panko.com

If Welch and Taylor were jumped by Vals at the beginning of their second sortie, these aircraft had forward-firing 30-caliber machine guns, which were more likely to be used in a dogfight than the rear guns. When Welch and Taylor jumped the Vals at Ewa, the Aichis were flying in a circle, and the rear-seaters were strafing targets on the ground.

Ray@Panko.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.146.16 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of Kills
Although Taylor frequently claimed that he probably got four kills, he was officially credited with two. Officially credited kills is the number to use.

Ray@Panko.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.146.16 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)