Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 81 Wing RAAF

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

No. 81 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


My third RAAF wing nomination at ACR, following on from No. 86 last month. Back to a 'glamour' formation, this is the parent organisation for Australia's three squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets, and their operational conversion unit. Like 86 Wing, No. 81 has had multiple incarnations, three in fact -- during WWII and the occupation of Japan, the early 1960s, and the late-1980s till now -- which has made research a challenge, but I think it's finally pretty solid. I've expanded it since its recent successful GAN, so any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, good work as usual and not much stood out for me. Referencing is comprehensive and covereage seems good. I made a minor tweak to an image caption; please feel free to revert if you don't agree. I also tweaked one of the image description pages. I only have a few comments:

  • in the lead, "the Hornets have been deployed for overseas peacekeeping missions". To which missions does this refer to? I couldn't seem to find any actual deployments in the body. My understanding is that they didn't actually deploy to Timor, but maybe I missed something...
    • Yeah, fair enough, I was looking for general wording to cover the Diego Garcia deployment + being on standby for Timor -- perhaps you or Nick can suggest something. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a go at rewording the article; please review and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks mate, the two ops really were different enough to require dedicated mentions -- I've tweaked but hopefully maintained your train of thought... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the World War II section, is it possible to include totals of sorties flown, casualties? Do these exist at all? 23:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Without the wing unit history sheets having been digitised, it'd mean checking the individual squadron histories in say Eather's ADF squadrons book or the RAAF Historical Section's fighter volume, to see if they mention anything. I'll certainly double-check my online copies of Odgers and Whispering Death to see if either mention casualties for at least a given point in time. Tks for review/support, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tweaked/added material via Odgers, incl. two months worth of sorties and losses figures from Arthur's "balance sheet". Tks for getting me to revisit the official history -- had clean forgotten that I'd failed to make any reference to the wing's (non)involvement at Balikpapan. BTW, the other Pacific War history that references 81WG, Whispering Death, doesn't add anything to Odgers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work Ian. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The first sentence seems too broad, and may not be entirely accurate since No. 82 Wing began operating Super Hornets (which are arguably better air-to-air aircraft due to their excellent AESA radar and stealthier design)
    • I wouldn't disagree re. the Super Hornets' capabilities but unless there's other declarations to the contrary I think we have to go with the main purpose of the wing as stated by the Air Force, even if it might seem a little out of date. Pretty well all combat aircraft are multi-role and undoubtedly the Super Hornets have their air-to-air killing power and the Classic Hornets certainly have a secondary strike role, but the stated purposes of the wings still seem to be demarcated as they've always been. To use what I think is an apt comparison in more ways than one, the Phantom was a more powerful fighter than the Mirage, but it's not why we got it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that I phrased that comment a bit poorly: I'd suggest changing this sentence to something like "No. 81 Wing is the unit responsible for operating the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft" given that the wing's responsibilities are broader than air-to-air operations. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I get you -- actually that's not a bad compromise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wing flew 1,125 sorties in October and November, dropping over 400,000 pounds (180,000 kg) of bombs, for the loss of 15 aircraft and 11 pilots" - yikes, that's an awful loss rate for a wing in the South West Pacific at this time (when Japanese fighters were non-existent, and their anti-aircraft defences generally not up to much). Do your sources explain why the wing suffered such high losses?
    • From memory a fair few aircraft generally crashed without any help from the opposition, but will check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Four from enemy action, one owing to weather, ten "unknown" -- at least at the time the report was compiled. Not sure how much that'd add to the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK fair enough. That really is a shocking loss rate though (it would have been something like one in six of the pilots killed); I imagine that many of the pilots were inexperienced based on what I found when researching No. 78 Squadron RAAF's operations in this period (Odgers p. 240 if you'd like to see the reference for that No. 78 Wing unit). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The movements of the wing along the north coast of New Guinea in 1944 should be noted
    • Will review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure which movements you mean, Nick -- I've recorded its relocations from Noemfoor to Morotai to Labuan, which I believew are all it did. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right: I missed that (despite searching for what I search were likely terms...) Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receiving an encouraging response" - this is a bit unclear. It would be better to say that lots of people volunteered to avoid any confusion.
    • Heh, 'twas just my turn of phrase... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources which discuss the formation of the 34th Brigade (Australia) for occupation duties in Japan typically note the depressing period in late 1945 when it was stuck on Morotai with no transport and no mission, leading to many of the volunteers deciding to accept demobilisation instead. Do any sources on No. 81 Wing note this unit having similar experiences at this time? (possibly not as the airmen and ground crew would have been kept busy converting to the Mustang)
    • Will check in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewing a couple of sources it looks like BCOF and re-equipment probably acted as necessary morale builders. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No. 82 Squadron lost three Mustangs and a de Havilland Mosquito" - from memory, the two-engined aircraft which guided the fighters to Japan were provided by the existing Mosquito and Beaufighter-equipped squadrons before they disbanded
    • Believe that's the case, but the major sources generally omit the squadrons of the Beaus and Mossies -- will tweak to "an escorting de Havilland Mosquito" or words to the effect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the Japanese offered no serious resistance to the Allied occupation" - I don't think that the Japanese offered any resistance at all, especially by the time the Australians began to arrive
    • Stephens at least couches it in these terms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the last-mentioned operating two-seat F/A-18Bs in addition to the single-seat F/A-18A" - I think that the RAAF's three operational Hornet squadrons also are often issued small numbers of F/A-18Bs. http://www.adf-serials.com.au/3a21.shtml has examples of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right, after all OCU's generally seem to have single-seaters as well as trainers -- will see about rewording without losing mention of the B models somewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks for review and suggestions, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed for GA and have read through this again and am satisfied it meets the A class criteria. Fixed a typo. Anotherclown (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/No._81_Wing_RAAF&oldid=1075714116"