Talk:Vultee Vengeance in Australian service
 | Vultee Vengeance in Australian service is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 3, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help! | .svg) |
External links modified (February 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vultee Vengeance in Australian service. 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/20170302095221/http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A27.htm to https://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A27.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Dive bombing was inefficient?
editThe article says: "other Allied air forces' experiences had demonstrated that dive bombing was an inefficient tactic"
I'm not so sure about that. It seems to reflect RAF pre-war doctrine that dive bombing didn't work, so the British regarded it with disdain throughout the war, while the American, German, Japanese and Russian air forces were using it with very great effect.
The Battle of Midway is a good case study. The Americans used high altitude heavy bombers which hit nothing at all (I don't think a high altitude heavy bomber ever hit a ship in the entire course of the war), torpedo bombers which did minor damage, and dive bombers which sank four aircraft carriers. In all, five aircraft carriers were sunk that day, all by dive bombers. Inefficient is not the word that forms in my mind. Peter Bell (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)