Talk:Operation Nickel Grass

Chronological problems with Operation Babylift Reference
Another Air Force decision was vindicated by Nickel Grass however; the C-5 Galaxy purchase. Since their introduction in 1970, the C-5 had been plagued by problems, not least of which was the deadly crash of a C-5 during Operation Babylift in which half the 300 onboard died. The Air Force claimed to have rectified the problems, but the C-5 was still viewed by the press and public as a monstrously expensive failure. During Nickel Grass, C-5s carried 48% of the total cargo in only 145 of the 567 total missions.

This has some chronological problems. I really don't know anythign about th C-5 galaxy or its problems but the operation babylift hapened two years after operation nickel grass so it doesn;t flow very well that Operation Nickel Grass built up support for the C-5 Galaxy aircraft when the diaster didn't happen until two years after the act that built up its reputation.


 * Bah! That's my fault. None of the references I used specifically cited Operation Babylift, I just identified that from my memory as one of the significant failures of the C-5. I'll fix the article up. -Lommer | talk 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

adequate number of refs?
I say there are, plus the style shows it was written AGF back when WP regs weren't so strict. Yes at some level it needs to be grandfathered in, but that is NO JUSTIFICATION for labelling it as open to challenge and subject to deletion. Maybe those who want to "cut it back" should spend their time finding the ONE OR TWO more cites that it perhaps needs, and less time trying to work with the admins to "make sure the tag sticks" 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated effect of Nickel Grass
This article (and most on the subject) seems to greatly overstate the military (as opposed to political) value of Nickel Grass. By the time the operation was underway the Egyptians were in the process of shooting their bolt in the Sinai; the Syrians had already done so almost a week earlier in the Golan Heights.63.3.21.129 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Nickel Grass was extremely important in that war, so how is this allegedly "exaggerated"?! Israel was getting desperate enough before this huge US military airlift, that the Israelis had threatened to the US that they would consider using their nuclear weapons against the Arab side (specifically Cairo, Egypt). Along with the US being Israel's main ally, the US wanted to prevent the use of an Israeli nuclear weapon during the war so the US did Operation Nickel Grass which affectly completely replenished and resupplied the previously depleted Israeli conventional military. --Historylover4 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The original comment says only that the purely military value (not political value) of Nickel Grass is overstated and nothing you have cited really refutes that.172.190.120.115 (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be argued that the military value of Operation Nickel Grass can be said to be allegedly "overstated"; whole books have been written on the topic with titles calling Operation Nickel Grass: "the airlift that saved Israel" and such. Again this US airlift to Israel just about completely resupplied the extremely depleted conventional Israeli military (which is again why Israel was considering using its nuclear weapons that it had obtained with French and British help in the 1950s and 1960s). --Historylover4 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not say military aspects are exaggerated, but I certainly note that political aspects are insufficiently included.CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets use something wonderful called "critical thinking". The first large batches of aid arrived on the evening of Oct. 14 per this article. By that time (if you need, look at the main Yom Kippur War article), Israel had beaten off the Syrian attack and was invading Syrian territory, and had crashed the Egyptian attack at Battle of the Sinai. And if you examine the last article, you'll see furthermore that the Egyptian command actually opposed advancing since they had no air cover (something they would have still lacked, aid or not). i.e. Syria was busy defending itself, and Egypt could not advance (and being even less able to after losing that battle). And if you look at the article you'll find this: "By then, however, Israel was already winning the war[reference to Rabinovich]". Nor were Israeli supplies "extremely depleted": "while the American airlift of supplies did not immediately replace Israel's losses in equipment, it did allow Israel to expend what it did have more freely".[Rabinovich again in the Yom Kippur War article]".


 * So in our alternative Yom Kippur War with no aid, Israel maybe would have not crossed the canal and would have had a worse outlook post-war, but that's a bit far from being a threat to Israel's existence. Maybe (but that's speculation) Egypt and Syria would have tried to keep the war on longer to wear on Israel (can we be sure of this? How much did attrition effect them? Would the U.S. have stopped the war or given aid in this case?), but that's still a bit far from "threat to Israel's existence".


 * Now, we do know that Israel threatened to get nuclear, but that was earlier under a different circumstance. Regardless of Israel's motives then, by the time aid actually arrived we can surmise Israel was not in danger of elimination (or at the very least, that conclusion would need some basis and cites no one has bothered to supply). Therefor, calling the operation "the airlift that saved Israel" is highly dubious at best. 79.182.3.211 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The real crux of the matter is that too many people take the Israeli nuclear threat at face value, rather than as a (very) high-stakes bluff that ultimately worked. Indeed, the purported willingness of Israel to use nuclear weapons as a last resort continues to this day to serve Israeli strategic interests. What people tend not to realize is that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (arguably) excepted, nuclear weapons have no real military value; they exist solely as a threat to world order, as something to be avoided at all costs. As such, they do have enormous, if limited, political value for those that possess them. Israel had them and made known that they could use them, the United States, fearful of what the Soviet and worldwide response to such an attack would be, made a choice to do what it took to avoid an Israeli nuclear response, however remote the actual possibility was of such an attack. It is hard believe that Israel, a nation with all of one ally in the world in 1973, would take the only decision that could reduce that number to zero and make itself the ultimate global pariah.172.190.138.108 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the people of Israel were (and remain) faced with the very real possibility of genocide if overrun by their neighbours, it's probably inaccurate to call their position a bluff. Granted, nuclear weapons are not a military weapon but a political one, but in this case, as in many others, they precisely achieved their objective - it's all very well to suggest that Israel would have lost their one ally, but dead people don't have allies, so I suspect that wasn't much of a disincentive.  62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Nickel Grass. 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/20141023173129/http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/DRM-2013-U-004480-Final2.pdf to http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/DRM-2013-U-004480-Final2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081128102859/http://www.cna.org/documents/5500022100.pdf to http://www.cna.org/documents/5500022100.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

role of the Netherlands
I miss the role of the Netherlands, which was also under full embargo, as were more countries: The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Could/should be reflected in 2nd paragraph: 'to use oil as a "weapon" and declared a complete oil embargo on the United States, and restrictions on other countries. '

Imo also to be included: " In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, the Netherlands was one of only two European countries (the other being Portugal) that allowed American aircraft ferrying military equipment to Israel as part of Operation Nickel Grass to use its airbases. The Netherlands also supplied Israel with military equipment during the war, primarily engines, spare parts, and shells for its British-built Centurion tanks after the British government had imposed an arms embargo on Israel and thus cut off Israel's original source for this material, but also parts and munitions for light AMX tanks, artillery ammunition, and aircraft bombs.[4] "

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Netherlands_relations to be found after note 3 and up to note 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:181D:A600:9984:E832:C043:FBEF (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors mis-reading source material, then writing it up as fact.
Case in point...

In the section titled 'Operation', an editor used a source that appeared to him or her that the United States delivered 100 F-4E Phantoms to the Israeli Air Force as part of Operation Nickel Grass. The sentence as seen in this current version (as of February 28, 2020) of the article reads:

'...consequently, at least 100 F-4 Phantom II fighters were sent to Israel under Nickel Grass, coming from the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 33d Tactical Fighter Wing and the 57th Fighter Weapons Wing...'

If the editor who put this information in the article had read the source correctly, he or she would have realised that the number of Phantoms mentioned in the source is the TOTAL AMOUNT of F-4E Phantoms in the Israeli Air Force inventory, and NOT the total amount delivered to the Israelis as part of Operation Nickel Grass. As per the source:

'...we have received new supplies, mainly in Phantoms, for which we are grateful. Our problem is crews. There are 69-70 crews left, who can use 80-100 Phantoms...'

Note the source provided by the editor did not say 80-100 Phantoms were delivered to the Israeli Air Force, rather that there were 80-100 Phantoms that were available to the Israeli Air Force. There are a multitude of sources that state the total number of F-4Es delivered during the operation was 34 aircraft. And since the same source says that 32 F-4Es were lost prior to the delivery, well, you can do the math on how many F-4Es Israel at the start of the war, as well as how many they actually had after getting the extra aircraft delivered. MainBattery (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020
I would like to edit a portion of the text that deals with the number of F-4E Phantoms that the US had delivered to Israel during this operation. The source that was quoted was in fact misquoted in the article. If the source was read carefully, it will show that Israel DID NOT receive 100 spare Phantoms. Rather the amount mentioned was how much the Israelis had in total in their air force. Various other sources indicate that Israel received 34-36 F-4Es as replacements for lost aircraft during Operation Nickel Grass. The source that was 'misused' in this article backs up those sources. MainBattery (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC) MainBattery (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * MainBattery is correct, the source was misread, here, from the US department of defense, it says the number of F-4's delivered to Israel under Nickel Grass is 34 aircraft.
 * And i quote "The official TAC history for July 1973 to July 1974 recorded TAC deliveries of 34 F-4Es to Israel between 14 and 21 October (1973)"


 * So, this line "Consequently, at least 100 F-4 Phantom II fighters were sent to Israel under Nickel Grass" should be changed to "Consequently, 34 F-4 Phantom II fighters were sent to Israel under Nickel Grass


 * Though i still must say that this doesn't mean that 34 was the TOTAL number of F-4's delivered during the operation, but this is the only accurate number we have right now on deliveries that took place while combat operations were still going (from 14-21 October), as the operation continued until 14 November. Wasteland1 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor typographic error
In the introduction, it reads "(MAC)shipped 22,325". There is a space missing. --Jadephx (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ECM deliveries
No mention is made to the delivery of critical ECM ( electronic counter measures) to the IAF that countered the effectiveness of Arab SAMs. Most of the " black boxes" were taken from our line fighters for use to the IAF resulting in fewer losses from SAMs. 2600:100E:B13B:EB0E:0:56:F968:8501 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Resignation of George Brown in 1974?
"George Brown, Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, resigned after criticizing the resupply effort. According to Time magazine, Brown's criticisms included the opinion that the airlift was driven in part by Jews controlling the American banking system."

George Brown in fact served as CJCS till 1978, resigning due to cancer.

The Time magazine source is from 1974 and never stated that he resigned. The Asia Times article seems inaccessible so I cannot check what it said. Either case, the link to his 1978 resignation is unsubstantiated, and if so, the effect of his opinion (in comparison to the opinion of dozens of other officials involved, or academic opinions) also falls below the WP:NOTABLE mark. So, I recommend removal. Ceconhistorian (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

George Brown
In this article, George Brown is said to have resigned in protest of operation nickel glass. Yet according to the Wikipedia article on Brown, he only became chairman in 1974, after the conclusion of the war. So this article contains a falsehood. I can’t correct it; I hope someone will. 99.189.66.86 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II aircraft flying non-stop to Ben Gurion Airport?
The article says "the tankers were ferrying factory-fresh Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom II aircraft flying non-stop from the factory in St. Louis, Missouri to Ben Gurion Airport." The meaning is unclear; does it mean that A-4 were ferried, and F-4 were flown directly to Ben Gurion Airport, or something else? None of the cites sources say that F-4 were flown directly to Israel. On the contrary, one source says F-4Es were ferried to Israel, and another says that A-4 were flown directly to Israel. If there is any source that says F-4 were also flown directly to Israel, it should be added, otherwise the sentence should be rewritten according to sources mentioned here. Happyseeu (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023
Change suggestion: Add the map of the transportation route between blocked airspaces of Western Europe and North Africa in paragraph "Operation": Christianh (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the map doesn't appear to be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request [factual error in text]

 * General George Brown did not resign and served the next President, Jimmy Carter. The cited source does not state that Gen Brown resigned. In response to his remark (per the linked cited source), Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin called for Brown's resignation. :
 * General George Brown did not resign and served the next President, Jimmy Carter. The cited source does not state that Gen Brown resigned. In response to his remark (per the linked cited source), Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin called for Brown's resignation. :

SagAstar5424 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)