Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

1812:

depending if you include the edits, first, I'd like to make the section more clear. When the section says most whatever since whenever is it referring to friendly fire fatalities or is it referring to Afghan Civilian fatalities, or both. iirc the sourced article seems to indicate that it's the ACF, and so I tried to correct the section but someone chose to roll back those edits, for whatever reason. Instead of someone going so far as to say this violated this policy in this way, explaining their actions, instead someone vaguely pointed at some policy and basically said figure it out with explaining anything. Do they think the widely reported 2009 Granai Massacre is somehow original research or something? I don't know and they seem to have no interest in explaining it. I think the information should be presented without bias and in context, rather than parroting misleading statistics taken out of context that was used during a campaign to retire the A-10 during sequestration. And what I feel are misleading paraphrased quotes should be corrected. This really isn't enormously complicated. I've tried to make a small number of modest changes, in such a way that if someone has an issue with one edit, and not with a second less controversial edit that simply reorders a sentence to eliminate something that's at best vague and at worst misleading, yet people choose to roll back any changes with only vague references to some seemingly irrelevant policy with no explanation.

1764:

the A-10 killed the most Afghan civilians by excluding the '09 incident, and all other pre '10 incidents. So why is this article presenting this misleading information creating the misleading impression that, because of vague wording, the A-10 could kill more allied soldiers in friendly fire incidents than any other airplane, which is false. Why is this article creating the misleading impression that the 35 Afghan civilians killed by the A-10 between 2010 and 2015 is significant, creating the misleading impression that the A-10 causes more civilian casualties than any other US aircraft. This is a false impression created by this paragraph. Sadly, I'm sure it's true that the A-10 caused 35 Afghan civilian casualties over that period of time, but, in context, while sad, looking at the broader picture, you see the truth that the A-10, in fact, is not the US aircraft that is most dangerous to civilians. Withholding that context from the reader only serves to create a false impression in the mind of the reader. A false impression that benefited the stated goal of the US Air Force, to retire the A-10.

1203: 1421:

that is not the same as saying the A-1's firepower was "poor." What is correct to say is the A-10 has much improved firepower, and a broader mission - the Skyraider was never intended for the same anti-armor role as the A-10, for instance, though it could destroy armor with bombs if need be, and the A-10 obviously carries a wider array of improved ordinance, most or all of unavailable during the Vietnam and Korean Wars. Simply put, as a close air support aircraft and as a bomber for certain types of missions, the A-1 was superior to other aircraft in the USAF inventory at the time.

1768:

think accurately reflects the text of the source. If I'm right it's referencing: "The data do not prove the A-10 is poorly suited to its mission, according to Dustin Walker, a spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee. "While any loss of life is a great tragedy, in the context of tens of thousands of Air Force combat missions, this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective in its primary mission, or at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents," Walker said."

670: 528: 405: 1596:

statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability." in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments section. For one, it's vague. What does "more than any other US military aircraft" refer to? To the killing of Afghan civilians? Specifically Afghan ones? But, then, the timeframe, why that timeframe? Why is that inserted into this article? For instance just one year earlier, in '09, a B-1 killed 97 civilians.

231: 686: 702: 438: 278: 1797:. I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make that much sense and you go off on a few tangents. Please list the sources you want to use (mentioning page numbers where relevant), preferably with quotes from them, and give a specific "change X to Y"-formatted statement. In the meantime until consensus is achieved, don't make changes to the article that now multiple editors have reverted. ~ 396: 654: 462: 472: 592: 556: 803:

unreliable source for exceptional claims, both citations to Burton in this article are for very basic details. If we can find better sources for the facts Burton's book supports, this would be preferable. Additionally, it would be best if we actually had the pages from Burton's book for the facts cited. ~

1885:

We're here to build an article that is informative regarding the subject. I don't see where out of context numbers regarding civilian and friendly deaths is informative about the subject. IMO it's the opposite. Such numbers would be heavily or primarily determined by the amount of missions performed

1673:

Also, what the heck does the following sentence, "These incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability." mean? Collateral damage issues "assessed" as being "inconclusive and insignificant" "in terms of the planes capability"... What

1438:

The sourced statement that the A-1 had poor firepower is referring to the time of the Vietnam War. While the A-1 (or rather, AD at the time) may have been an exceptional attack aircraft in terms of firepower when it first saw combat in Korea, it was a different story over a decade later in Vietnam.

1907:

I may have missed it but this article doesn't seem to cover what missions/roles the A-10 fills, e.g. combat search and rescue, forward air controller (airborne), strike control and reconnaissance, counter air and counter sea, close air support, special operations support (which are primary missions,

1763:

In fact, in the time period in question from 2010 to 2014, the A-10 caused the second fewest civilian casualties per sortie compared to six other aircraft, only the AC-130, which created .7 civilian casualties per sortie caused fewer casualties per sortie than the A-10. And, again, you can only say

1574:

Not looking at the document either, but glancing at the link and seeing "2012", I'm assuming it's the same 2012 manual that keeps popping up in various places. It is "reasonable" in that it is A-10C (not A-10A), but since 2012 numerous developments have been made in terms of systems for the A-10, so

2506:

The Night attack prototype included improved HUD, FLIR, LLTV, a "laser ranging device", terrainfollowing radar, an ins, radar altimeter, and moving map display, the lltv replaced the pave penny pod, the tfr was in station four, and the flir and laser ranging device were on pylon six Flight testing

2011:

states something, we can publish it to the article (Example if a reliable source states that there is no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog). If there are contrasting viewpoints in other media you can add it

1767:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think that the paraphrasing, "these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.", which, at first I objected to because on the face of it it seemed to be nonsensical, looking at the source, I don't

1755:

You can do this comically. For instance an example of popular comic misinformation is warning people about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide. It kills people, causes untold billions of dollars in damage every year, so on and so on. This creates the false impression that di-hydrogen monoxide is

1621:

For instance, in '03 a F-14 killed 22 allied troops. Why is this information presented in such a narrow way completely stripped of it's context? Presumably this is information that was released by the AF at a time when, I'm sure, coincidentally, the AF was campaigning for the A-10 to be withdrawn

1420:

Saying the Skyraider had inadequate or poor firepower is simply incorrect, and the starement either needs an explanation or removal. The A-1 had adequate firepower for the time and place, and it was superior to the available alternatives. One hopes that a replacement aircraft would be improved, but

2340:

As a matter of fact, yes. Readers with dyslexia (of which I have a self-diagnosed minor case) can, in fact, be confused by the lack of "friendly" and may have to reread the sentence to understand what it's trying to say. It is because of this that we should not remove words that serve to clarify

1743:

It's not about how it was reported. It was actually reported skeptically, noting, for instance, that the Project on Government Oversight requested the government furnish information on collateral damage from outside. wrt: "Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the

1595:

I think there's a problem with this text "The A-10 has been involved in killing ten U.S. troops in friendly-fire over four incidents between 2001 and 2015 and 35 Afghan civilians from 2010 to 2015, more than any other U.S. military aircraft; these incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and

1405:

I do agree that it could use some clarification. Is this "poor firepower" referring to internal armament, like cannon? Is it referring to the amount of ordinance it could carry being to low? Is it referring to an inability to mount more modern, harder hitting or more accurate (or both) ordinance?

802:

book, almost all of which were traceable to claims made first by Sprey or attributed to him in the book. Burton's book, also critically addressed by the anthropomorphic swine, is mustered twice as a citation in this article. While I agree with LazerPig's assessment of Burton being something of an

1860:

ambiguity I reordered the sentence to make it clear that the issue of the 10 fratricides was a different, unrelated issues, over a different timespan ('01-'15). This is very very simple, but this seems to have become intractable, so I have raised the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

1006:

The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with capacity up to 1,350 rounds of percussion primed ammunition. Most aircraft have a helix installed in the drum assembly which limits the system capacity to 1,174 rounds of percussion

1811:

The problem is that I cannot read peoples minds, at least not over the internet. I don't know why you rolled back my edits. I don't know what you think was original research. I don't know what Hohums or ZLEAs issues were either as they chose not to divulge them. For the third time, or fifth

1748:

but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the article should generally make sense. Which, I believe, at present, it doesn't for reasons I've already stated. I don't think it should muddy the issue, making vague statements. And I don't think the article should present

1859:

The source is the same as the original source for the information. As an example, in the last case, I simply reordered the sentence to remove the ambiguity. For the sixth time, the AF claimed that in the time period of '10 to '15 the A-10 caused the most civilian casualties, to eliminate the

2058:

Also it is incorrect that most losses were to small arms fire. It would be nearly impossible to down a Skyraider with small arms fire. It could be correct to say "ground fire," which in Vietnam ranged from twin 14.5mm heavy machineguns, 37mm, and larger gun batteries, and SAMs. Practically

1759:

In this case, though, I thought it was quite painfully obvious, the Air Force presents a set of facts. During a certain time period the A-10 killed more Afghan civilians than any other US military aircraft. Taking this information out of context, as this article does, this creates the false

1647:

Was there something unique about the A-10 in these instances? Was there some kind of flaw? Was there something special or interesting about the four friendly fire incidents or the incidents where A-10s killed Afghan civilians? Was there something unique about how the A-10 was employed in

1717:

Hohum is right. The incidents are included because they were widely reported by reliable sources. Whether such reporting was "specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory. -

2036:

the citation (which contradicts all of the other citations, including the design of the A-10 and its gun to kill tanks, on this page) that the A-10 was "exclusively designed for Close Air Support" comes from a 2016 book that doesn't cite its sources and is written by a guy whose

1044:

A fully loaded A-10 can carry 2,000-pound and 500-pound joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMs, bombs; laser-guided JDAMs; the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missile; and, McCarthy said, "don't ever forget the gun with 1,150 rounds -- what that aircraft was built

1050:

So to sum up what is going on to my understanding, the A-10A started out with a max capacity of 1,350, which was reduced to 1,174 already on some aircraft. On A-10Cs (so all remaining A-10s), it appears to always be 1,174 max capacity, with 1,150 being the typical load. –

1965:

In the article it is said that F-35 replacement of A-10s is contentious "both within the USAF and political circles," yet there seems to be no compelling reason to believe that the USAF in itself has any significant opposition to its own attempts to retire the Warthog.

881:

I tend to agree. There seems to be a dearth of independent evidence presented so far that he was involved to any serious degree. None of my contemporary paper books that deal with the A-10 mention him. If new sources arise I am happy to change that opinion, though. -

2304:

Actually, I am explicitly opposed to removing it. I strongly disagree with the notion that "friendly" is flowery language. In this case, "friendly" is intended to, and absolutely does, make it abundantly clear which ground troops are referred to in the sentence. -

865:

In the service of achieving a consensus, consider this my support for the exclusion of Sprey as a source in this article and the exclusion of any non-independent sources that suggest he was intimately involved in the A-10's development (so, the current article). ~

953:

book through the RSN circuit might actually be a great move. Would allow us to more definitively deal with this more than year old issue. Had to remove a lot of anti-Sprey POVing from his article just now. A broader community view might really stabilize things. ~

677: 570: 693: 574: 2096:

The aircraft's maximum in flight weight (51,000 lb) is higher than it's maximum taxi, takeoff, and landing weight (46,000 lbs) according to the flight manual. The obvious answer to how this is possible would be in-flight refueling I reckon. –

2176:

What is the point of describing the supported forces as "friendly"? Is there someone who might get confused and think an air force is providing close air support to enemy troops? This does not improve clarity, it is simply childish writing.

1739:

While they are rhetorical questions, I also want to know the answer to those questions. I don't have any problem including information about collateral damage caused by the A-10, but it should be done in context, and not in a misleading

366: 1744:

worst possible light" is not really relevant here unless there are reliable sources to back up that theory." again, yes, it was reported skeptically, that article points out, referencing a response by the Project on Government Oversight

153: 829:

We have more discussion in the threads above (ignoring the Bean one). I think the consensus was leaning against inclusion of Sprey as a member of the A-10s development in this article, though his claims should be addressed elsewhere. ~

2262:, Flowery language is the hallmark of academic writing, which makes technical topics (assuming this is a technical article - a highly doubtful proposition in itself) LESS clear and LESS approachable to the lay reader, not more so. 2290:"Everyone else" is one other editor, who isn't explictly opposed to removing it, just asked why. It's just one word, indeed, so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to removing it, when in fact it does not making anything clearer. 1622:

from service? And at that time, the AF just happened to release information specifically tailored to put the A-10 in the worst possible light? So why is it being presented in this article with no context, no analysis?

2423:

I am not putting any words in your mouth, I'm asking you what you think the addition of "friendly" and "enemy' adds here, a situation in which it should be obvious that "Support" is for your forces and not enemy forces.

2233:

is perhaps a flowery way of describing clear phrasing. Knowledge (XXG) is not written for experts, so some accommodation for the unacquainted reader is worthwhile. As you are a newer editor, I encourage you to review

661: 566: 1771:

I'd simply quote the source as saying "this data is inconclusive and statistically insignificant to determining which weapon system is most effective... at avoiding civilian casualties or friendly-fire incidents"

2155:

The 1976 date is when the first production A-10 was delivered. The 1977 date is when the first A-10 combat unit became operational (fielding). The fielding date is when an aircraft is introduced into service.

1559:

My understanding is that the same document has been issued several times with several revisions under the same name. Not looking at yours (sorry, don't trust PDF hosting sites) but chances are probably not. ~

1981:

There are those within the USAF who want to replace the A-10 with the F-35, and there are those who want to keep the A-10 in service for the foreseeable future. The statement, which is expanded upon in

1371:

Also, while I'm typing, where did the nickname "Warthog" come from? I had long understood it to be a reference to the A-10's ungainly appearance, but haven't seen a reliable source for any explanation.

44: 1354: 1159: 709: 578: 2619: 1544: 147: 2629: 746:

even called the source "a Sprey propaganda piece". I vaguely remember a discussion or dispute regarding Sprey in the past. Is there a consensus on Sprey's involvement in the A-10 program? -

2614: 1935: 1833:

I rolled back your edits because you didn't provide sources in the article for your claims. You have been reverted once; further efforts to restore your edits without acquiring consensus is

2569: 2624: 1439:

Unless you have a source contradicting the one in the article, or you have evidence that the source is unreliable, the statement should remain. We can't remove sourced content based on

1387:

The A- attack designation only specifies an aircraft's role, not necessarily how effective it is at that role. Times change. The A-1 was from a previous era. Do some reading/research.

2534: 1174:. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the 928:

Yup. Those were the ones I was referring too. I agree with removing the questioned source if it's unreliable, but I'm not quite sure how that was determined. Did it go through RSN?

2062:

256 USAF and Navy A-1s were lost to groundfire, and another 10 to other causes. The Vietnamese Air Force lost a total of 255. This latter number should be noted in the article.

2081:

in specifications it states the max takeoff weight is 46,000 lb (20,865 kg), but in the CAS mission the weight is stated as 47,094 lb (21,361 kg). is this intended or a mistake?

769: 202: 198: 194: 190: 1474:

Usually in Knowledge (XXG) articles about thing known by multiple names, all the names are near the top and in bold. Should the same thing be done for "Warthog" and "Hog" here?

1017:

The gun subsystem consists of a seven-barrel GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun and a double-ended linkless feed system with a capacity up to 1,174 rounds of percussion primed ammunition.

604: 1745: 1202: 2235: 2559: 1886:

and the nature of them (importantly close air support) ...that would be a good place to start as context info to avoid being misleading from being taken out of context.

2508: 1368:

The article says "The A-1 Skyraider also had poor firepower." An attack plane with poor firepower? What did it use to attack? This calls out for more explanation.

1141: 2326:

Thanks for clarifying, So you think that without 'friendly' someone might be confused and think the air force is providing close support to the enemy ground troops?

896:

The whole pro-Sprey/anti-Sprey thing seems very odd. Seems there's people on both sides attempting to use WP to push their POV. We need to be careful to be neutral.

2378:

So you think people might be confused and think the air force is providing support to enemy troops? It's ridiculous. Look at other articles about CAS aircraft like

347: 2609: 2574: 2507:

of the A-10 N/AW, serial number 73-1664, began on Oct. 23, 1979, and ended on Dec. 4, 1979, apparently it was made obsolete by other improvements like lantirn.

794:. He accurately pointed out that the version of the article extant at the time of the first videos presented demonstrably false information via citations to the 409: 79: 976:

From this article: "The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition, but generally holds 1,174 rounds."

2604: 2554: 2599: 2192:"Childish writing" is not enough of a reason to remove it. Do you think the inclusion of "friendly" might cause more confusion for the average reader? - 2041:

is WWII history. Can this be deleted since it's clearly wrong (as contradicted by the other citations on the page) and is just generally a bad citation?

1648:

Afghanistan? Perhaps relating to the altitude, or the terrain of the country, maybe a language issue, something relating specifically to that mission?

2214: 1703:

You're better off making concrete suggestions for what should be changed rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions and making accusations. (

599: 561: 168: 2564: 1111: 1085: 135: 85: 1308: 1022:

My understanding however is that 1,150 is indeed the "typical" load, as pointed out for example by retired A-10 pilot Luke Fricke on a podcast:

2594: 2589: 2213:

The reason to remove it is that succinct language should be preferred to flowery language that does not add anything to the understanding. See

1983: 1213: 24: 2364:

It clarified which troops the CAS applies to, i.e. supporting vs. attacking. But moving "enemy" to earlier in sentence may do the same thing.

1908:

which secondary?). Also the article doesn't seem to have good coverage of the OA/10, though I don't know the exact details about the OA/10.

307: 2639: 608: 1534: 2446:

This is only my 3rd comment to this section. A little earlier I removed friendly and kept enemy in the Lead. One should be enough. Regards

2042: 1746:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150210231032/https://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/af-hq-declassified-and-released-incomplete-data.html

30: 1179: 2341:

the sentence, so long as they do not unreasonably detract from the clarity for the average reader, which this case certainly does not. -

2634: 2584: 2579: 2117:

in the description of the aircraft under the picture it says introduced october 1977 but in the first paragraph it says introduced 1976

1967: 129: 2539: 1548: 2509:

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/858863/republic-nightadverse-weather-a-10-ya-10b/

295: 289: 99: 502: 786:

Most of the discussion emanates from a series of YouTube videos by a British man going by LazerPig (the most relevant can be found

537: 484: 448: 443: 125: 104: 20: 2549: 790:). Mr. Pig explicitly mentions this article in his videos and the subsequent discussion of Sprey on this talk page made it into 74: 2276:

Everyone else seems to think it's not flowery. It's one word and does nothing but make something technical abundantly clear. ~

1167: 418: 175: 2544: 1377: 1315: 1163: 65: 1079: 1923: 1689: 1663: 1637: 1611: 260: 2216:. Do you think the average reader might be confused and think the air force is providing close support for the enemy? 914:, there do seem to have been at least a few others who seem to have a "dog in that race" for one reason or another. - 256: 2382:- there's none of this "supporting friendly troops by attacking enemy forces" nonsense, its obvious and not needed. 1752:

To quote wikipedia, the definition of misinformation is "Misinformation refers to false or misleading information.".

141: 1580: 1334: 1266: 1056: 489:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of 185: 1253:

to ground troops by attacking armored vehicles, tanks, and other enemy ground forces, with a secondary mission of

109: 2465: 2429: 2387: 2331: 2295: 2267: 2221: 2182: 2086: 1373: 1234: 1034:

Airmen from the 51st Munitions Squadron preload shop ensure the proper load-out of 1,150 rounds in each magazine.

2122: 1489:

I am aware that the page already says the names "Warthog" and "Hog", but they are shown more down and not bold.

211: 1411: 1329: 1295: 1288: 1281: 1171: 490: 2046: 844:

Yeah that prev conversation brought up a lot of the issues, but we didn't get a conclusive consensus there. -

424: 1971: 1533:

Is the publication TO 1A-10C-1 the correct and reasonable current flight manual for the A-10C? As found here

2253: 2082: 2021: 1516: 1230: 603:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2134: 2118: 1911: 1700:

I'm an uninvolved editor - but my thoughts are that if this was widely reported, then it's worth inclusion.

1677: 1651: 1625: 1599: 1540: 2067: 1494: 1479: 1426: 669: 1535:

https://kupdf.net/download/t-o-1a-10c-1-flight-manual-usaf-series-a-10c-2012_58f4d870dc0d60a105da981b_pdf

264: 55: 1576: 1262: 1052: 1023: 277: 2520: 2469: 2455: 2433: 2415: 2391: 2373: 2357: 2335: 2321: 2299: 2285: 2271: 2247: 2225: 2208: 2186: 2165: 2148: 2126: 2106: 2090: 2071: 2050: 2025: 2002: 1975: 1954: 1927: 1897: 1869: 1854: 1821: 1806: 1794: 1781: 1734: 1712: 1693: 1667: 1641: 1615: 1584: 1569: 1552: 1520: 1498: 1483: 1459: 1430: 1415: 1396: 1381: 1191: 1060: 995: 963: 937: 923: 905: 891: 875: 853: 839: 812: 781: 762: 70: 2461: 2425: 2383: 2327: 2291: 2263: 2217: 2178: 991: 1834: 527: 299: 1893: 1407: 1254: 161: 215: 2512: 2451: 2411: 2369: 2161: 2102: 2017: 1915: 1861: 1828: 1813: 1788: 1773: 1681: 1655: 1629: 1603: 1512: 1392: 1226: 216: 496: 2281: 2243: 2144: 2063: 1850: 1802: 1565: 1490: 1475: 1435: 1422: 1250: 1187: 959: 871: 835: 808: 51: 798:

book. The outcome of that discussion was to remove the more exceptional claims cited via the

2516: 2420:

Do you see the irony of 'You don't have to reply to every comment' in a reply to my comment?

1919: 1865: 1817: 1777: 1685: 1659: 1633: 1607: 1170:(POTD) for February 24, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at 1126: 1089: 933: 901: 239: 213: 230: 1760:

impression that the A-10 is unique in the danger of it causing civilian collateral damage.

1709: 1103: 987: 919: 887: 849: 777: 477: 2013: 2008: 1440: 973:

There seems to be a discrepancy between this article and the article for it's armament.

911: 2405:

Don't try to put words other people's month. You don't have to reply to every comment.

2348: 2312: 2199: 1993: 1945: 1837:. I provided you a clear path to convincing us that your edits are worthwhile; you did 1725: 1450: 1242: 753: 2528: 2447: 2407: 2365: 2157: 2098: 1388: 980: 2379: 2277: 2239: 2140: 1846: 1798: 1561: 1183: 955: 867: 831: 804: 1938:

are hyphenated), or any of the other missions, feel free to expand the article. -

685: 461: 437: 1233:. Nicknamed the Warthog, it has been in service since 1976, and is named for the 983:: "The magazine can hold 1,174 rounds, although 1,150 is the typical load-out." 929: 897: 701: 2252:

I think you miss the point. Did you read the article I linked to? Or this one

1704: 915: 883: 845: 824: 791: 787: 773: 467: 1257:, which involves directing other aircraft in attacks on ground targets. This 2342: 2306: 2193: 1987: 1939: 1719: 1444: 1175: 820: 747: 1026:(relevant part starting approx. 22:15) quote: "typical load is 1150 rounds" 255:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 2032:

Shoddy citation for the "exclusively designed for close air support" claim

910:

While I think most of the WikiProject regular editors here are relying on

1508: 1166:

used in this article, has been selected as the English Knowledge (XXG)'s

1756:

unusually damaging and dangerous when, of course, in fact, dhm is water.

1674:

does that mean? What is meant by "in terms of the planes capability"?

653: 1222: 591: 555: 2511:

I don't know how best to include this information in the article.

2059:

speaking, even a 14.5mm would have a tough time with a Skyraider.

1986:, accurately describes the state of the A-10's retirement plan. - 770:

Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey

1265:, was photographed in 2011 flying over Afghanistan in support of 1934:

If you can find reliable sources covering the OA-10 (not OA/10,

738:

There has been a dispute on this article about the inclusion of

389: 225: 217: 15: 1160:

File:Fairchild Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II_-_32156159151.jpg

700: 684: 668: 652: 526: 1509:

the manual of style guidelines for when bold should be used

1142:"U.S. A-10s, tankers fly Syria missions 24/7 from Incirlik" 2055:

A-1 losses to enemy fire in Vietnam were 256, not 266.

1841:

of those things and did the one thing I encouraged you

1349: 1344: 1339: 1178:. If you have any concerns, please place a message at 772:- no discussion there. Let's sort it out here, then. - 743: 359: 340: 2236:

Knowledge (XXG):Make technical articles understandable

160: 2570:

Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Technology

986:

Not sure how to address this discrepancy. Thoughts?

740:

The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard

2620:

North American military history task force articles

635: 174: 2630:United States military history task force articles 2535:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use American English 2615:GA-Class North American military history articles 1537:Or is this source not authoritative? Thanks. :) 1511:. I don't think Warthog counts in this instance. 2625:GA-Class United States military history articles 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2012:in. Deciding to publish our own viewpoints is 1127:"MUNS Airmen epitomize fight tonight readiness" 1042: 1032: 1015: 1004: 1406:"Poor firepower" is a bit too broad a term. -- 305:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 8: 2560:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Technology 617:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 2139:. Thanks for noting that, taken care of. ~ 1909: 1675: 1649: 1623: 1597: 1538: 678:North American military history task force 632: 550: 432: 319: 272: 243:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 694:United States military history task force 2460:Thanks, your version looks much better. 1158:Hello! This is to let editors know that 597:This article is within the scope of the 483:This article is within the scope of the 1961:Contentiousness of the F-35 Replacement 1180:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Picture of the day 1071: 552: 434: 2555:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 2230: 1545:2601:152:C100:2D56:65E4:1309:43E5:AB92 607:. To use this banner, please see the 501:. To use this banner, please see the 284:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II 25:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II 2610:Military aviation task force articles 2575:GA-Class vital articles in Technology 620:Template:WikiProject Military history 263:, this should not be changed without 7: 2077:conflicting weight in specifications 1197: 511:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Aviation 395: 393: 2605:GA-Class military aviation articles 1154:Featured picture scheduled for POTD 423:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2600:GA-Class military history articles 1024:Fighter Pilot Podcast, episode 044 14: 742:by James G. Burton as a source. 298:. If you can improve it further, 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1273:Photograph credit: William Greer 1201: 1140:Pellerin, Cheryl (27 May 2016). 1088:. 15 March 1988. p. 1-150 – via 590: 554: 470: 460: 436: 403: 394: 276: 229: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2565:GA-Class level-5 vital articles 2258:"Flowery" is unclear phrasing, 2007:As far as wikipedia goes, if a 2260:the opposite of clear phrasing 2051:18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1106:; HEBCO, Inc. (2 April 2012). 286:has been listed as one of the 1: 2595:WikiProject Aviation articles 2590:WikiProject Aircraft articles 2540:Knowledge (XXG) good articles 1416:15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) 1397:15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC) 1382:14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC) 1225:attack aircraft developed by 1192:13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC) 1125:Grimm, Amber (17 July 2015). 1012:From the A-10C flight manual: 1001:From the A-10A flight manual: 535:This article is supported by 514:Template:WikiProject Aviation 42:Put new text under old text. 2640:Cold War task force articles 2072:11:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 1460:19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 1431:10:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 1061:11:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC) 996:01:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC) 969:GAU-8 Ammunition discrepancy 662:Military aviation task force 600:Military history WikiProject 2521:04:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 1936:US Tri-Service designations 964:22:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 938:22:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 924:22:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 906:21:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 892:15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 876:15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 854:15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 840:14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 813:14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 782:12:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 763:12:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2656: 2635:GA-Class Cold War articles 2585:GA-Class aircraft articles 2580:GA-Class aviation articles 2166:14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 2149:11:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 2127:09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 1521:14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1499:12:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1484:12:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1267:Operation Enduring Freedom 1112:Secretary of the Air Force 1086:Secretary of the Air Force 1029:Also from a photo caption: 2107:00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 2091:00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 2026:05:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 2003:22:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) 1976:20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) 1903:Missions/Roles also OA/10 1591:Collateral damage problem 1108:Flight manual TO 1A-10C-1 1081:Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 708: 692: 676: 660: 631: 623:military history articles 585: 534: 455: 431: 380: 367:Good article reassessment 322: 318: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2470:18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2456:17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2434:17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2416:17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2392:16:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2374:15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2358:02:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) 2336:12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2322:02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2300:22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2286:20:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2272:20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2248:19:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2226:18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2209:18:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 2187:17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 1955:23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1928:21:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1898:18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1870:17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1855:02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1822:00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1807:04:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1782:04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1735:22:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1713:22:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1694:12:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1668:01:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1642:01:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1616:01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1249:was designed to provide 1172:Template:POTD/2023-02-24 2550:GA-Class vital articles 2113:conflicting information 1585:09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1570:06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1553:02:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1231:United States Air Force 768:All we seem to have is 636:Associated task forces: 1575:it's not "current". – 1316:More featured pictures 1047: 1036: 1019: 1009: 705: 689: 673: 657: 531: 75:avoid personal attacks 2545:Warfare good articles 2502:naw prototype details 1529:Correct Flight manual 1470:"Warthog" & "Hog" 1263:74th Fighter Squadron 1241:, a World War II–era 734:Pierre Sprey (part 3) 704: 688: 672: 656: 530: 417:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 410:level-5 vital article 296:good article criteria 290:Warfare good articles 100:Neutral point of view 2039:entire other archive 1374:Piledhigheranddeeper 538:the aircraft project 486:Aviation WikiProject 348:Good article nominee 261:relevant style guide 257:varieties of English 105:No original research 1277:Recently featured: 1255:forward air control 1214:Fairchild Republic 712:(c. 1945 – c. 1989) 710:Cold War task force 259:. According to the 1283:Physalis peruviana 1227:Fairchild Republic 1168:picture of the day 1007:primed ammunition. 706: 690: 674: 658: 605:list of open tasks 532: 419:content assessment 323:Article milestones 86:dispute resolution 47: 2083:Lighningknight134 1930: 1914:comment added by 1696: 1680:comment added by 1670: 1654:comment added by 1644: 1628:comment added by 1618: 1602:comment added by 1555: 1543:comment added by 1364:"Poor firepower"? 1325: 1324: 1274: 1251:close air support 1221:is a single-seat 728: 727: 724: 723: 720: 719: 716: 715: 609:full instructions 549: 548: 545: 544: 517:aviation articles 503:full instructions 388: 387: 376: 375: 360:February 23, 2017 314: 271: 270: 224: 223: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2647: 2356: 2351: 2345: 2320: 2315: 2309: 2207: 2202: 2196: 2138: 2135:Meat is the best 2119:Meat is the best 2001: 1996: 1990: 1953: 1948: 1942: 1832: 1792: 1733: 1728: 1722: 1458: 1453: 1447: 1297:Robert le diable 1272: 1260: 1248: 1238: 1217: 1205: 1198: 1182:. Thank you! — 1164:featured picture 1146: 1145: 1137: 1131: 1130: 1122: 1116: 1115: 1100: 1094: 1093: 1090:Internet Archive 1076: 828: 761: 756: 750: 643: 633: 625: 624: 621: 618: 615: 614:Military history 594: 587: 586: 581: 562:Military history 558: 551: 519: 518: 515: 512: 509: 480: 475: 474: 473: 464: 457: 456: 451: 440: 433: 416: 407: 406: 399: 398: 397: 390: 381:Current status: 362: 343: 320: 303: 280: 273: 240:American English 236:This article is 233: 226: 218: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2525: 2524: 2504: 2462:Kentucky Rain24 2426:Kentucky Rain24 2384:Kentucky Rain24 2354: 2353: 2349: 2343: 2328:Kentucky Rain24 2318: 2317: 2313: 2307: 2292:Kentucky Rain24 2264:Kentucky Rain24 2218:Kentucky Rain24 2205: 2204: 2200: 2194: 2179:Kentucky Rain24 2174: 2132: 2115: 2079: 2034: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1988: 1963: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1940: 1905: 1826: 1786: 1749:misinformation. 1731: 1730: 1726: 1720: 1593: 1531: 1472: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1445: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1321: 1303: 1302: 1258: 1246: 1236: 1215: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1104:Lockheed Martin 1102: 1101: 1097: 1078: 1077: 1073: 971: 818: 759: 758: 754: 748: 736: 641: 622: 619: 616: 613: 612: 564: 516: 513: 510: 507: 506: 478:Aviation portal 476: 471: 469: 446: 414: 404: 358: 339: 265:broad consensus 220: 219: 214: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2653: 2651: 2643: 2642: 2637: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2617: 2612: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2592: 2587: 2582: 2577: 2572: 2567: 2562: 2557: 2552: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2527: 2526: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2421: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2361: 2360: 2347: 2311: 2256: 2198: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2152: 2151: 2114: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2078: 2075: 2043:174.67.177.185 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2005: 1992: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1944: 1904: 1901: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1741: 1737: 1724: 1701: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1572: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1502: 1501: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1449: 1418: 1408:OuroborosCobra 1400: 1399: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1332: 1326: 1323: 1322: 1320: 1319: 1312: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1293: 1290:Hair Like Mine 1286: 1278: 1276: 1261:, assigned to 1243:fighter-bomber 1218:Thunderbolt II 1207: 1206: 1196: 1195: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1132: 1117: 1095: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1048: 1040: 1037: 1030: 1027: 1020: 1013: 1010: 1002: 970: 967: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 752: 735: 732: 730: 726: 725: 722: 721: 718: 717: 714: 713: 707: 697: 696: 691: 681: 680: 675: 665: 664: 659: 649: 648: 646: 644: 638: 637: 629: 628: 626: 595: 583: 582: 559: 547: 546: 543: 542: 533: 523: 522: 520: 482: 481: 465: 453: 452: 441: 429: 428: 422: 400: 386: 385: 378: 377: 374: 373: 370: 363: 355: 354: 351: 344: 341:April 16, 2010 336: 335: 332: 329: 325: 324: 316: 315: 281: 269: 268: 234: 222: 221: 212: 210: 209: 206: 205: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2652: 2641: 2638: 2636: 2633: 2631: 2628: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2618: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2591: 2588: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2543: 2541: 2538: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2530: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2501: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2422: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2352: 2346: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2316: 2310: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2203: 2197: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2076: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018:MaximusEditor 2015: 2010: 2006: 2004: 1997: 1991: 1985: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1968:75.132.237.67 1960: 1956: 1949: 1943: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1902: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1736: 1729: 1723: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1708: 1707: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1671: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1645: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1619: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1536: 1528: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513:GraemeLeggett 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1469: 1461: 1454: 1448: 1442: 1437: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1369: 1363: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1343: 1341: 1338: 1336: 1333: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1311: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1256: 1252: 1244: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223:twin-turbofan 1220: 1219: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1153: 1143: 1136: 1133: 1128: 1121: 1118: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1099: 1096: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1046: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1003: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 993: 989: 984: 982: 981:GAU-8 Avenger 977: 974: 968: 966: 965: 961: 957: 952: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 880: 879: 878: 877: 873: 869: 855: 851: 847: 843: 842: 841: 837: 833: 826: 822: 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 801: 797: 793: 792:another video 789: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 764: 757: 751: 745: 741: 733: 731: 711: 703: 699: 698: 695: 687: 683: 682: 679: 671: 667: 666: 663: 655: 651: 650: 647: 645: 640: 639: 634: 630: 627: 610: 606: 602: 601: 596: 593: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 575:United States 572: 571:North America 568: 563: 560: 557: 553: 540: 539: 529: 525: 524: 521: 504: 500: 499: 494: 493: 488: 487: 479: 468: 466: 463: 459: 458: 454: 450: 445: 442: 439: 435: 430: 426: 420: 412: 411: 401: 392: 391: 384: 379: 371: 369: 368: 364: 361: 357: 356: 352: 350: 349: 345: 342: 338: 337: 333: 330: 327: 326: 321: 317: 312: 310: 309: 301: 297: 293: 292: 291: 285: 282: 279: 275: 274: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 241: 235: 232: 228: 227: 208: 207: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2505: 2404: 2380:Sukhoi Su-25 2259: 2175: 2116: 2080: 2064:Sciacchitano 2061: 2057: 2054: 2038: 2035: 1984:this section 1964: 1910:— Preceding 1906: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1842: 1838: 1835:edit warring 1705: 1676:— Preceding 1672: 1650:— Preceding 1646: 1624:— Preceding 1620: 1598:— Preceding 1594: 1539:— Preceding 1532: 1491:CommandProMC 1476:CommandProMC 1473: 1436:Sciacchitano 1423:Sciacchitano 1370: 1367: 1314: 1307: 1296: 1289: 1282: 1271: 1212: 1210: 1157: 1135: 1120: 1107: 1098: 1080: 1074: 1066: 1043: 1033: 1016: 1005: 985: 978: 975: 972: 950: 949:Putting the 948: 864: 799: 795: 739: 737: 729: 598: 536: 497: 491: 485: 425:WikiProjects 408: 383:Good article 382: 365: 346: 306: 304: 300:please do so 288: 287: 283: 252: 248: 244: 237: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1795:WP:TEXTWALL 1793:Please see 1239:Thunderbolt 1114:. p. 1-398. 498:task forces 238:written in 148:free images 31:not a forum 2529:Categories 1067:References 1039:Also this: 988:Gnomatique 744:One editor 492:open tasks 294:under the 2448:-Fnlayson 2408:-Fnlayson 2366:-Fnlayson 2158:-Fnlayson 1889:North8000 1845:to do. ~ 1443:alone. - 1389:-Fnlayson 1355:file page 1235:Republic 1176:Main Page 413:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2172:Friendly 2099:Recoil16 1924:contribs 1912:unsigned 1690:contribs 1678:unsigned 1664:contribs 1652:unsigned 1638:contribs 1626:unsigned 1612:contribs 1600:unsigned 1541:unsigned 1229:for the 1045:around." 579:Cold War 567:Aviation 508:Aviation 449:Aircraft 444:Aviation 415:GA-class 308:reassess 253:traveled 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2278:Pbritti 2240:Pbritti 2231:Flowery 2141:Pbritti 1847:Pbritti 1799:Pbritti 1562:Pbritti 1345:history 1309:Archive 1184:Amakuru 956:Pbritti 868:Pbritti 832:Pbritti 805:Pbritti 331:Process 249:defense 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2513:Fanccr 1916:Fanccr 1862:Fanccr 1829:Fanccr 1814:Fanccr 1789:Fanccr 1774:Fanccr 1682:Fanccr 1656:Fanccr 1630:Fanccr 1604:Fanccr 1577:Recoil 1245:. The 1053:Recoil 930:BilCat 898:BilCat 817:Also, 421:scale. 353:Listed 334:Result 126:Google 2014:WP:OR 2009:WP:RS 1706:Hohum 1441:WP:OR 1350:watch 979:From 916:Ahunt 912:WP:RS 884:Ahunt 846:Ahunt 825:Ahunt 774:Ahunt 402:This 245:color 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2517:talk 2466:talk 2452:talk 2430:talk 2412:talk 2388:talk 2370:talk 2344:ZLEA 2332:talk 2308:ZLEA 2296:talk 2282:talk 2268:talk 2244:talk 2238:. ~ 2222:talk 2195:ZLEA 2183:talk 2162:talk 2145:talk 2123:talk 2103:talk 2087:talk 2068:talk 2047:talk 2022:talk 1989:ZLEA 1972:talk 1941:ZLEA 1920:talk 1894:talk 1866:talk 1851:talk 1839:none 1818:talk 1803:talk 1778:talk 1740:way. 1721:ZLEA 1686:talk 1660:talk 1634:talk 1608:talk 1581:talk 1566:talk 1549:talk 1517:talk 1507:See 1495:talk 1480:talk 1446:ZLEA 1427:talk 1412:talk 1393:talk 1378:talk 1340:edit 1335:talk 1330:view 1259:A-10 1247:A-10 1237:P-47 1216:A-10 1211:The 1188:talk 1162:, a 1057:talk 992:talk 960:talk 951:Boyd 934:talk 920:talk 902:talk 888:talk 872:talk 850:talk 836:talk 823:and 821:ZLEA 809:talk 800:Boyd 796:Boyd 788:here 778:talk 749:ZLEA 495:and 372:Kept 328:Date 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1843:not 176:TWL 2531:: 2519:) 2468:) 2454:) 2432:) 2414:) 2390:) 2372:) 2334:) 2298:) 2284:) 2270:) 2246:) 2224:) 2185:) 2164:) 2147:) 2125:) 2105:) 2089:) 2070:) 2049:) 2024:) 2016:. 1974:) 1926:) 1922:• 1896:) 1868:) 1853:) 1820:) 1805:) 1780:) 1711:) 1692:) 1688:• 1666:) 1662:• 1640:) 1636:• 1614:) 1610:• 1583:) 1568:) 1551:) 1519:) 1497:) 1482:) 1429:) 1414:) 1395:) 1380:) 1269:. 1190:) 1110:. 1084:. 1059:) 994:) 962:) 936:) 922:) 904:) 890:) 874:) 852:) 838:) 811:) 780:) 642:/ 577:/ 573:/ 569:/ 565:: 447:: 311:it 302:. 251:, 247:, 201:, 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 2515:( 2464:( 2450:( 2428:( 2410:( 2386:( 2368:( 2355:\ 2350:T 2330:( 2319:\ 2314:T 2294:( 2280:( 2266:( 2255:? 2242:( 2220:( 2206:\ 2201:T 2181:( 2160:( 2143:( 2137:: 2133:@ 2121:( 2101:( 2085:( 2066:( 2045:( 2020:( 2000:\ 1995:T 1970:( 1952:\ 1947:T 1918:( 1892:( 1864:( 1849:( 1831:: 1827:@ 1816:( 1801:( 1791:: 1787:@ 1776:( 1732:\ 1727:T 1684:( 1658:( 1632:( 1606:( 1579:( 1564:( 1547:( 1515:( 1493:( 1478:( 1457:\ 1452:T 1425:( 1410:( 1391:( 1376:( 1186:( 1144:. 1129:. 1092:. 1055:( 990:( 958:( 932:( 918:( 900:( 886:( 870:( 848:( 834:( 827:: 819:@ 807:( 776:( 760:\ 755:T 611:. 541:. 505:. 427:: 313:. 267:. 203:4 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index