Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

A-10 background and the Cessna A-37

Howdy, casual observer here, wondering if any of the cited sources on the A-10 discuss the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly. My understanding—from personal connections and casual reading, definitely not WP:RS—is that the USAF pursued the A-37 largely as an interim stopgap measure to staunch A-1 attrition and address shortcomings in the A-1's capabilities until a better aircraft (the A-10) could be developed, and in this respect, the A-10 also replaced the A-37 in addition to the A-1. I realize that the A-10 is a much more capable aircraft designed with a far greater emphasis on survivability than the A-37, but as I understand it, the Super Tweet was never the aircraft the USAF really wanted—it was the aircraft they could get cheap and in large numbers, right away, and there was a war on. Seems to me that this topic would be a worthy addition to the article and I'm surprised it's not addressed already. Pardon my ramblings. Carguychris (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a big stretch to connect the A-37 to the A-10. I looked at three of my books on the A-10 and they mainly mention the A-1 Skyraider and other attack aircraft like F-105 and A-7. I have not found a mention of the A-37 in these books. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the claimed involvement of Sprey and Burton

I suppose I should have explained my reasons for editing the previously added information first. My reasons for the edit was because the part about Pierre Sprey's involvement in the A-10's development was outdated since it was added in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey) and more information has since come out that made Sprey's claims questionable and contradictory. I apologize for not notifying anyone that I was editing the article and I should have discussed it first. AardvarkSleuth (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible for several things to be true eg 1) that Sprey (and others) had opinions on attack aircraft that were provided to the military 2) that other engineers have significant contribution to design 3) to the extent that Sprey's contribution is overstated and 4) other designers contribution is understated.

But what we really need is some solid referencing on the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disputation of section "A-X program" Pierre Sprey's involvement

I've noticed several others have already attempted to make this change but it was been revoked on the grounds that the admins are under the impression the Wiki page is being troll bombed, or words to that effect.

I wish to dispute the mentions of Pierre Sprey used in the section "A-X Program". Pierre Sprey is one of the more infamous members of the "Fighter Plane Mafia" a group with a reputation for inserting themselves into various historical events regarding the development of United States Military Aviation projects between the 19050's and 1980's for media attention. There is no historical evidence that Pierre Sprey was ever involved in the A-X program, he was not a member of Fairchild's branch of Republic Aviation at Long Island who designed the A-10, and at the time the A-10 was being conceived Sprey had already left the Pentagon in order to pursue a career as a record producer. The A-10's lead designer was Alexander Kartveli.

The sources currently cited in the article's current form that make the claim of Sprey's involvement are the Biography of John Boyd, one of Sprey's best friends and fellow member of the Fighter Plane Mafia, and the book by James Burton "Pentagon Wars" a book who's factual accuracy was debunked over 20 years ago, and is now largely considered a work of fiction. These sources have no historical value and would not be accepted in any other serious publication.

I request that these citations be noted, that the article either remove references to Sprey's involvement and the sources which claim so, or that the dispute be acknowledged in a separate section of the article.

Malcious (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I second this, as there is no proper citation, rather a simple "Coram 2004", with no link. 100.36.155.231 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've flagged instances of "Coram, 2004" for needing page numbers. I found a preview version of the book online and it's hard to tell if the things claimed are not found in the book because 1. it's not shown/searchable in the preview, or 2. phrased such that simple searches can't find them (or I guess 3. not in that book) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested theres about four copies of Boyd on archive.org. It reads more like a hagiography in parts (the author says in the introduction that he spoke to Boyd's "Acolytes" including Sprey) but no indication its reliability is dubious. A-X project discussion is across pages 235-237 (and there's not a lot of text on those pages) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is troll bombed, but this does seem to be getting a lot of attention in the last few days for some reason. We need sources. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NoReformers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), SneakyStephano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 50.90.211.22, and perhaps Malcious (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) all appear to be the same person, so I don't know that it qualfies as "a lot of attention". The article history and this section bears the link, which is just too coincidental. As to the merits, I don't know, I'm a bit more concerned with the monkey business. {{checkuser needed}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I might have found the source of the attention, 7 months ago a YouTuber did 2 videos on the A-10 and why he didn't think it was a good plane, but the first of the 2 videos just turned into a video on how Pierre Sprey wasn't involved and is actually a lier. One of the things mentioned was the artical and so it likely brought attention. This is just a theory though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.220.2 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be concurrent with the effort to prove that Alexander Kartveli designed the A-10. TMK, he was retired by that time, as I recall no mention of his name in the reliable sources I have on the A-10, or on any reliable aviation sites. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't confirm that Kartveli was the main designer of the A-10, but he was definitely not retired at the time it was designed, whereas Sprey was not even working for Fairchild Republic. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I'm going to go with  Inconclusive (no comments on IP, etc.) If you want to know more as to what that means, NoReformers is on a static IP that I trust on geolocation. SneakyStephano is on a different continent and on the same extremely common device, and no proxy checks indicate a VPN, etc., but it is in a region I tell new CUs not to trust without behavioural evidence confirming geolocation because of the advent of peer-to-peer proxies and historical lack of reliability of CU data from that area. So in short, NoReformers has a known location. SneakyStephano has no technical indications of using a proxy, but based on experience with ISPs on Wikipedia, I cannot confidently say I trust the CU data on this ISP. Use your judgement and feel free to issue blocks regardless of socking if there's disruption that warrants it (I know you're an old-hand, but that is my standard line in cases like this, without making judgement on the merits of said blocks.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Likely, we are looking at meatpuppetry or a combination then. The coordination is too exact to be coincidence. I'm not going to break out the ban hammer just yet, but if the tag teaming keeps up, then I'm likely. But again, it isn't a lot of attention like it seems. The best thing, as 331dot points out, is to get sources. We just don't need the monkey business to get sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant "a lot of attention" relative to the topic- in my opinion at least(I was passing by) but I agree with everything said here. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As one of the people who did that, I can say I did a foolhardy action, partly because I didn't know about talk pages. I have no intention of repeating it as that will go nowhere. I can say that I have no idea who the other users are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.211.22 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with Pierre Sprey regardless of the attention this page is receiving is that the only mention of him in the sources given are two books written about Boyd. The paragraph that says "according to former pilot John Boyd" should be edited because this gives the impression that Boyd was a pilot of the A-10. In reality, Boyd was done flying for the USAF at this point and his role was relegated to lobbying. He was a member of the same lobby group as Sprey. We have no other sources to verify what Boyd says about his close colleague, and Boyd himself was never part of the A-10 project. Furthermore, the book by Coram says it uses information from Boyd's "acolytes" and not Boyd himself. Thus, the phrasing "according to John Boyd" should be changed to also reflect that we don't have a direct quote from him. Lastly, there's also this doctoral thesis (https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) which points out Sprey and his colleagues history of being misleading with their credentials and experience, one of which being Sprey's participation on the A-10. The other citation used was Ford's book which makes even more outlandish claims by saying they brought in German nationals who had to be housed in a CIA safehouse. There is no other source that says the CIA was even involved in any way on the project, and if it's classified, this information wouldn't be openly disclosed. I think at the very least a note needs to be made about that paragraph. --Zhanjack822 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay so I would like to offer a suggestion however I'm not sure if I have this whole story correct so here's my best summary and someone can let me know if I got it right.

So about 7 months ago the YouTuber lazerpig known for his other critiques of the fighter Mafia members published two videos about the a-10 disputing the claims that spray was ever involved in the a-10 program. Currently the only proof that he ever was is from books about another member of the group who claimed spray was involved in the basic requirements set out for the a-10 not designing the aircraft as a whole.

If this is all correct the answer is quite simple. Spray didn't design the a-10 the aircraft development team and Fairchild did, then built there design and submitted it to the air force for testing, that's how aircraft procurement works. Now if spray wrote the requirements set out for the program his name should be referenced on the proposals submitted to every company that decided to enter the program. If there is no proof he ever set the specifications for the aircraft then there should be no argument. The proper documentation should be able to be requested from whichever aircraft manufacturer took over the design team when Fairchild was bought out. Or a freedom of information request could be made looking for the original Fairchild design proposal and the documents that layed out the requirements for competitors in the program Tankophiliac (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything it's more likely if Sprey influenced the specification that his involvement would be recorded in internal memos and minutes that were used to generate the final specification rather than being on the specification document itself as issued to aircraft manufacturers. I don't think FOI will get you anywhere (Someone somewhere is probably writing the definitive history of the A-10 with benefit of internal documents). At the moment all the source does seem to say is that Sprey had a hand in the specification, the article text can reflect that without getting bogged down into the exact amount of influence he had over the specification. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Does it even matter? Writing requirements is not designing the aircraft. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Technically, writing specifications IS part of designing, although not nearly as sexy as breaking out the graph paper. You can say he "played a small role by assisting with the original specifications" or similar and get that done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sprey

As of now, part of the development section of this article has been made a hidden comment on the basis that claims made by the late Pierre Sprey are under greater scrutiny following public discussion of his falsification of involvement in previous projects. Unless a source independent from Boyd can substantiate the claims, the reference is based on hearsay statements from an individual known for exaggeration and falsification and will be removed soon. To break seriousness for a moment, the bit about "German WWII veterans" really is the icing on the embellishment cake. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: you removed the portion played in the comment on the basis that it is "cited content." Ignoring for a moment that the content is at the minimum improperly cited, it is also worth noting that not all sources are to be treated equally. As such, the inclusion of such major claims as made in the Boyd book require greater substantiation than that available in this text, which is based almost exclusively on a single source compiled by an individual with no official qualifications as a historian. There aren't even citations for most of the statements given. Such sources are more than questionable enough to be hidden until further substantiation is made available. Simple prior presence in an article is not enough to qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be formed to remove cited content (see WP:CONACHIEVE). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: it would seem we have a stance towards exclusion of this material already. Additionally, to temporarily hide material that is under consideration for not being a WP:RS is good practice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I count five editors for the removal of the material and only one for the appellation of a disclaimer. The other editors in the conversation were only concerned regarding the potential of trolling stemming from a video that mentioned Sprey. This seems like consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Consensus should be based on weight of arguments not just vote count. Also, several of the posters in previous sections apparently came from YouTube and are single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA), not Wikipedians. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson:Still, other non-SPA editors–including myself–have offered legitimate criticisms of the source and have suggested deletion or significant relegation. Are you providing an argument for retention? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the German pilots for the moment, the business about asking Skyraider pilots about their experiences and then using that to derive specifications does not seem untoward. It does not meet the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence level. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sprey text should be removed or heavily re-written based on other sources, imo. The Campbell Warthog book (see article Biblio) says he became one of the Whiz Kids and helped write/revise the requirements spec for A-X program. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett and Fnlayson, so that we can move towards consensus sometime in the soonish future, I propose retention of certain aspects of the Boyd sourcing, specifically the portion on the Skyraider pilots. Outside of that, I would be hesitant to include much more. As Fnlayson noted in his edit, some portion of Sprey's involvement in particular is at least alluded to in the mention of the cannon's introduction and I'm am good with that. While I would like a consensus in the next couple of days (so that if more SPAs show up we have a definitive answer), if there is future serious comment I do think this ought continue discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sprey's role in the committee which put fort the requirements for the program is referenced elsewhere and seems undisputed, except by those invested enough to dispute Sprey's involvement wholesale. Whatever occurs with references to Sprey's purportedly more material role, references to his role in the aforementioned committee shouldn't be expunged, although perhaps more citations should be added for this apart from Boyd. Zusty001 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: Do you have some of these additional references? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: "The Revolt of the Majors: How the Air Force Changed After Vietnam" cites an interview with Lt. Gen. Arthur C. Agan in which he heavily lambasts Sprey, but tacitly acknowledges both Boyd and Sprey's involvement with the A-X project.

"While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of."

This is just a citation I could locate easily. Sprey's involvement in the project itself seems to be more or less universally known, excluding ideas such as his being the main designer (Personally, I don't think he was intentionally lying when he said things such as that, but that's not relevant). I've not read Robert Coram's book on John Boyd, and it does seem to be a sort of panegyric, but I would like to hear more about if it should be expunged as a citation or just clarified. Zusty001 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that citation, Zusty001! I'll try to plug the relevant information in (though it seems to deal far more heavily with F-15 development, there are potentially useful pieces here). The reason the Boyd book's information is not presently visible (though still available for reinsertion pending additional verification) is that the claims made within the text are not independently verifiable, come nearly exclusively from Sprey's interviews, and are fairly fantastical in their content. The same trouble partially arises with the work you've cited here: Sprey's interviews form a significant basis for what his involvement was (though here are bolstered in part by additional sourcing). Much of what is known about Sprey comes almost exclusively from his own words rather than independent reporting. Heck, even the Washington Post couldn't be bothered to provide us with some additional sourcing and borrows heavily from the interviews cited in the Boyd text for Sprey's recent obituary here. Indeed, most of what we know about Sprey falls into this trap of poor verifiability, frustrating as it may be. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: The book, and citation, I'm reffering to is Robert Coram's "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War". As just mentioned, the author was not Boyd himself, but one Robert Coram. Again, I haven't read the book, and I don't know how heavily it relies on personal statements of Boyd, Sprey, etc., but I'd like to see more actual discussion of that.

As for the work I've mentioned, "The Revolt of the Majors", the interview contained within and which I've quoted above was not an interview of Sprey (As noted), nor was it conducted by him (As should be explicit given the language); The interviewer was Jacob Neufeld, of the Air Force Historical Studies Office, and, previously, Director of the Center for Air Force History.

His involvement in the more material aspects of the A-X program is one thing. But the suggestion that he and his cohorts somehow managed to fabricate his involvement with such a government-involved project entirely, fooling even the entire government itself, is, I think, unjustifiably conspiratorial in its precepts. Zusty001 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I recognize what text you're referring to as I was the one who combed it and realized there were no citations for many of the claims made within it except to supposed interviews with the late Sprey. Indeed, the quotation you included does in fact cite a Sprey interview, though this text cites additional material that undermines the credibility of Sprey's claims within the book on Boyd. The issue at hand is the suggestion of some aspects of his story–notably the involvement of WWII German pilots in the development process–that fly in the face of properly-sourced testimonies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: "Indeed, the quotation you included does in fact cite a Sprey interview..." May I ask what you mean here? As I've stated, the interview is of Lt. Gen. Arthur C. Agan of the Air Force, who is giving a very explicitly negative overview of Sprey in the quotation (While affirming his and Boyd's involvement in the A-X program). If you don't mean to say that this is an interview of or by Sprey, I apologise, but still ask for clarification.

"...this text cites additional material that undermines the credibility of Sprey's claims within the book on Boyd." By this text, do you mean the work "The Revolt of the Majors", or something else? Zusty001 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The quotation of the article you cited above, found on page 80 of the text, is referenced as citation 45 of that section, attributed to an interview of Sprey with a citation found on page 92. The material within "Revolt" actively undermines the credibility of Sprey and his claims, which form the near exclusive basis of material regarding his involvement in A-10 development as described in the book on Boyd. "Revolt" essentially demonstrates through further sourcing that Sprey overestimated his involvement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I should apologise; Lt. Gen. Agan's interview with Neufeld does not mention Sprey by name. Agan was a figure in the F-X program, and a proponent of single-role fighters. What I quoted above was "The Revolt of the Majors"'s own words, derived from an interview with Sprey. I'm not sure if I heard the quote improperly attributed somewhere else or if was purely my own mistake. I retract a large portion of what I said. The exception to this retraction is that Sprey's involvement, even if exaggerated in media, in other sources, and even by himself, isn't really deniable, and shouldn't be eliminated wholly from the article. (Somewhat related to what I said about contrary claims being 'unjustifiably conspiratorial' is that the Sprey and Agan interviews by Neufeld were conducted within two years of each other, with the other two Neufeld interviews cited in "Revolt" being with Calvin Hargis of the Department for Development, and Gen. Roger Rhodarmer, the head of the F-X program, presumably as a series of USAF interviews on that aforementioned program); "The Revolt of the Majors" may still be relevant for citation, as well. Zusty001 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: You’re fine! I will repeat though: we have had no independent verification of Sprey's claim on this matter appear in the article or on the talk page, and your suggesting regarding the interviews, while a reasonable extrapolation, excludes it from inclusion due to WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, it is not conspiracy to suggest Sprey's claims are false because nearly every independently verifiable source dismisses them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Checking to see if I am shadowbanned. Zusty001 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no "shadowbanning" on Wikipedia. If you were under a topic ban or similar you would know it. - Ahunt (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: It appears I am not. I was unable to reply to you yesterday. "...nearly every independently verifiable source dismisses them." Putting aside what may be called an 'independently verifiable source' for these purposes, I disagree. The problem, given that there is one, is the simple lack of sources that give anything resembling a list of persons involved in the A-X and F-X programs. Numerous sources involving known U.S. Air Force and general U.S. military affiliated persons tell of Sprey's *involvement* in the program, if only to discredit what they purport to be his exaggerations of his own importance. I don't see an attempt to discredit this entirely as good grounds to expunge his name. If I were to make a suggestion, and hopefully a moderate one, it would be that the currently hidden portion should be revised, adding clarification and perhaps more information on these complications, as well as additional information on the development in general; Or, if needed, it should be deleted and rewritten, without expunging all mention of Sprey. Zusty001 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Was unable to edit on this talk page, as well as other pages, yesterday. Edit would publish and then simply not show up anywhere. I'm unsure why. Zusty001 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Zusty001 I was having similar problems earlier today. It's most likely a technical issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zusty001: As a fairly new account on here and as previously mentioned in this conversation above, credence is given those editors who demonstrate both initiative and involvement. Since the vast majority of your accounts edits have been talk page discussions, I would encourage you to take this opportunity to improve the article using what resources you find. If you are unable to, whether due to technical limitations that appear to have frustrated your efforts yesterday or time restrictions that plague all our lives, I can do it. Additionally, if you need any technical help or have any additional questions, reach me on my talk page or here. I would appreciate seeing what edits you want to see as that would very much help closing this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GAU-8 Anti-tank Effectiveness

I propose the section on GAU-8 describing it being built specifically for “anti-tank” operation contain a disclaimer that the weapon was only effective at penetrating side and rear armor of post-war tanks (such as T-55) when it came out.

The weapon was essentially obsolete at the anti-tank role for any contemporary armor. The Maverick missile was always intended to be its primary anti-tank weapon and this has been borne out in practice. DietDrPhil (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)