Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vultee Vengeance in Australian service


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service

 * Nominator(s): 

The Vultee Vengeance is one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most notorious lemons. Ordered during a crisis period in early 1942, the aircraft did not arrive in significant numbers until 1943 and first entered combat late that year. A large deployment of the type to New Guinea in early 1944 proved short-lived and embarrassing to the RAAF, as despite a competent performance by their crews the Vengeances were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to create room at forward airfields for more capable types. Small numbers of the dive bombers soldiered on in secondary and support roles until 1946, and a handful of air frames were provided to the Royal Australian Navy for ground training. As part of its analysis of the type's service the RAAF's Air Power Development Centre noted that the Vengeance provides a good case study in why equipment purchases need to be well considered.

This article passed a GA nomination in April, and has since been expanded and improved. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering further developing the article for a FAC, and would appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. Thanks in advance for all comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Peacemaker67 I reviewed this article thoroughly at GAN and have reviewed the changes since then (including the additional image and its licensing), and consider it meets the A-Class criteria. I made a few minor typo fixes. Just make sure I haven't changed the intent or introduced errors. As far as FAC is concerned, I would try to tease out the whole development of thinking on the efficacy of dive-bombing. It is still a bit counter-intuitive, in that it seems that it was used with some success as a dive bomber, yet was dispensed with. Given the success of the Dauntless, perhaps the design/alternative aircraft and employment techniques played greater parts in its demise? I'm just guessing here, but it seems to be an area which would bear more discussion in this article given it was the only Australian dive-bomber. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll see what I can do with finding sources on that topic - it seems like it was a combination of the Allied air forces believing that dedicated dive bombers were a bad idea due to problems with the tactic and the superiority of other approaches (rockets, level bombing, use of fighter-bombers etc) and the dubious quality of the Vengeance compared to other aircraft available to the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of thing I mean. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * All tool checks ok, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolation.
 * Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information. Captions also look ok to me.
 * I couldn't find any major issues after reading through it. Seems like a solid summary of the topic to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Support -- tks for this article, Nick, a great addition to the "in Australian service" series... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns.
 * Having touched on the history of the type's service while creating or improving articles on No. 77 Wing and No. 10 Group (1TAF), I think this is comprehensive and don't recall seeing anything much on comparisons with other aircraft, but I agree with PM it would be useful to add something if it can be sourced.
 * Sources reliable and formatting looks okay.
 * I'll take as read AC's image check.
 * Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.