Talk:Operation Bolo

"It's Here!"

Its here, Operation Bolo page took me five hours to write it and here it is it made need some pictures and i may need help putting the pictures

See Help:Images. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

YES its an Military history WikiProject Tu-49 00:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) wait, y hasn't it been ranked yet? Tu-49 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) YES A B RATING

F-4 Phantom II Performance & Handling

In the article, the statements of the F-4 having excellent handling with it's only weakness being the lack of a cannon conflict with even later statements in the same paragraph. AVKent882 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

pictures and internet

how does the articles get on the sites like Yahoo and google

What are you talking about? Diez2 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

the pics i have put into this WIKIPEDIA DOESN'T HAVE IT!!!!!!!!! how does wiki get the pictures cuz the two i got wiki don't have them Tu-49 01:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First, what 2 pictures are you talking about? Second, have you properly uploaded these pictures? Diez2 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

if u look on the article u'll see two links in red those are the picturesTu-49 02:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to be used on Wikipedia, an image must be uploaded to Wikipedia. Directly linking the URL of the image on another website does not work. In addition, images must use a license compatible with Wikipedia. So, these images cannot be used on this article unless you gain explicit permission from the copyright holder to release them under a compatible license. See also Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC) i read you there, but what are the images wiki has talk to me here guys i want this one to stay on wiki (no offense swap) some one send me the wiki pic gallery thing please Tu-49 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC) i got some pictures off the website we got the MIG-21 top image at im citing them now Tu-49 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

okay im lost now i've tried and tried and tried to get those pictures to work and idk (i don't know) how to varify them, some one give me a little hand and not send me an article about it Tu-49 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.history.com/minisites/dogfights/images/dogfights_gallery7.jpg this image will not load up on Wikipedia, how do i get it to load up and be a wikipedia image

You should save it onto your computer and then uploaded it through the saved file on your computer. Please also read WP:TALK to see how to conduct conversations (with the proper syntax) and refrain from typing in caps as it is uncivil and seems like yelling. Cbrown1023 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

calling uncivil eh? im a new yorker thats my attiduede and i do have the image saved, but it says jpg will not be expcted here in Wiki Tu-49 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean that you were uncivil... I guess I phrased it incorrectly. What I mean was when you type in caps, it looks uncivil... Also, I don't know what you are taling about with the jpg... tons of images are in jpg... what's your problem with uploading? what do you need help with?? Cbrown1023 02:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

getting it to work hold on Tu-49 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

okay the images are wikified, but they still show red as if i cant acsess them take a look and see what i did wrong cuz im lost here so yea i need loads of help with this and please spare me those long articles, just keep it shot and simple with me, could u do that?Tu-49 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it... you put the wrong filename for the image... on the upload page it says "Destination filename" whatever you put there is what you type in the article... I had to backtrack through your image contributions to find out the name of the file, so it's easier if you do it yourself next time... if you have any more questions on this or anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Cbrown1023 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to the author

1. There article should be looked over carefully for spelling and grammatical errors. There are quite a lot, so here are just a couple of examples:

- Spelling: line 5: Should be ...within minutes...' and not "...with in minuets..."

- Tenses:

3rd paragraph, last line: " they flew low until they got under the attackers, then pull up and slice through the formation with deadly results". Change to either "they fly up..." or to "..., then pulled up and sliced through...".

- Singular vs plural:

3rd paragraph, first line: "So you have this gunless, Mach 2+, double seat fighter that are roaring...". Change to either "So you have these gunless....two-seater fighters...", or "...two-seater fighter that is roaring...".

- Other:

last paragraph, last line: Should be '...greatest...' and not '...most greatest...'.

2. More important than the mistakes is the overall style of the narrative. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Here are some examples :

'Suddenly Olds spots a MIG-21 shooting through the clouds; he breaks off the formation and follows the MIG. The Mig Pilot is stunned as he realizes the attacking planes are not F-105s, but F-4's. With in minuets he will be shot down along with six other MIG-21s in one of military aviation's greatest battles'

'Now sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo.'

'So you have this gunless, Mach 2+, double seat fighter that are roaring over a nation in "civil war" shooting down North Vietnam pilots and you think it didn't have a rival? Well if so, you’re wrong'

'Key to winning this new conflict is air supremacy, and America has a few aircraft to throw into the flames.'

'It was time for Rambler flight to make their mark. Captain John B. Stone was the leader of Rambler flight, and when they got to their destination, he spotted two (of what he would later learn)MIG-21's streaking through a break in the clouds. He dives and fires an AIM-7 sparrow, to his amazement the rocket does not fire. Unfazed, he shoots again this time with a good shot and gets his kill on one of the MIGs. Then a Third MIG jumps him from behind, but using a joint maneuver with “Rambler 02” he put the MiG in line of fire of Philip P. Combies (“Rambler 04”). '

Good luck.Alexandert14 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i aprecieate your suggestions and i have made some changes to make the quotes from the pilots look like quotes, but i wrote the whole thing on word and the changes your asking me to make was instantly corrected on word so theres nothing i can do right now i'm trying to keep sections from this article on the article Tu-49 14:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

if you ever see the history channel show Dogfights thats where i got the idea for this article from and im trying to make it sound similar to that its a thing i have when i write essays and articles Tu-49 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by '...was instantly corrected on word...'. I'm not an expert in Microsoft Office, but I'd be surprised if the software would be able to spot such mistakes. Each of the words (with, in, most, greatest, minuets) on its own, is correct. Also I don't know if Word can tell when there are incorrect changes in tense etc. You will probably have to make the corrections manually. Also, It may be a good idea to ask a friend to look over the text - sometimes its difficult to spot our own mistakes.

I could see straight away what you were aiming for with the article, however, It's all about striking a balance between engaging the reader's interest and providing a factual and unbiased report of an event. From what I see at the top of your article, I am not alone in thinking that you've not got the balance right. This article is meant to be used by readers wanting to learn more about e.g. the use of aircraft in the Vietnam war, or military aviation in general. In order to do this it needs to be focused on what happened, when it happened and why. Not on how 'fantastically cool' it all was when it was happening. On a related point, it is worth remembering that the pilots on both sides were human beings with families and friends. Refering to their injury or death as '...scoring a kill...' is a bit insensitive. It may be that the phrase is used within the ranks of the air force or in computer games, however, in that case the article should probably just present the phrase in the context of explaining meaning and usage and leave it at that.Alexandert14 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i've tried making these corrections like u pointed out at school duing my free peroid, but the bell rang before i could even get 10% of it done Tu-49 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has a dramatic, novelizational tone. Haizum 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

dramatic? novelizational tone?????? am i getting punked? Tu-49 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

okay i've wikified this article to it breaking point, i don't think there will be any changes in the near future now can u make this an answer to like the google or/and yahoo search Tu-49 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude and I'm glad to see this article has been started - it's a very interesting story; but to be honest, when you say Phantoms were "dressed up" and "screams into the battlfield," that isn't using a particularly encyclopedic tone. More interesting to read, yes, but someone will probably come along and make some sweeping edits if it isn't changed. Haizum 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Now sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo." You should be a producer for The History Channel my friend. But again, not really fitting for an encyclopedia. --Haizum 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

man ur the FIRST person to say that to me, i got the theme and the way of speach for this article from the histroy channel show Dogfights. Tu-49 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. That's a fantastic show. I don't think editors are allowed to use transcribed narrations though. I'm honestly not sure. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article as currently composed is essentially correct factually, but somewhat incomplete. The Bolo Operation was coordinated and supported by an RC-130 aircraft of Project "Silver Dawn," an airborne intelligence platform operated by the 6988th Security Squadron staging out of Danang AB, RVN, which employed a crew of Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Vietnamese linguists and code specialists to monitor the radio frequencies used by the NVAF and air defense network and to extract real-time tactical air intelligence from the traffic. The Silver Dawn aircraft was linked to Colonel Robin Olds by way of an experimental secure voice transmission system known by the codename "Angel Voice". Colonel Olds was informed by Silver Dawn when the MiG-21's went airborne out of Phuc Yen and began to be vectored by the North Vietnamese GCI controllers for an intercept of what they assumed from its flight profile to be an inbound F105 strike force; Silver Dawn passed to Colonel Olds, via Angel Voice, the approximate number, speed, headings, and altitudes of the MiG-21's, all extracted from monitored North Vietnamese radio transmissions, well prior to when the hostile aircraft were sighted and engaged by the USAF fighters, with the result that Colonel Olds was able to order his F-4's into optimum positions to engage the DRV interceptors.

In point of fact, having been informed by the Hanoi GCI controller that he should be seeing the American F105's soon, the first North Vietnamese MiG-21 pilot to break through the cloud cover and sight the American force shouted, "Oh god, the are not F105's, they are F-4C's!"

The irony of Operation Bolo is that, while it was happening, a force of approximately fifty obsolete MiG-15 aircraft crewed by North Korean "volunteer" pilots, short on fuel and mostly unarmed, were airborne north of Hanoi on a training mission and were detected by the Silver Dawn platform, which attempted to contact Colonel Olds on the Angel Voice system and relay the location of the additional targets; Colonel Olds, however, having completed the destruction of the DRV MiG-21's, had by that time turned off his Angel Voice system and was leading his victorious pilots back to Thailand. The North Korean pilots survived to become the new backbone of the North Vietnamese interceptor forces in the months and years to come.

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with textual citations to verify this information. However, I was the airborne intelligence analyst on the Silver Dawn aircraft that day, and my knowledge of these events is first person and that of a participant. WolverineDeus (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)WolverineDeus

Robin Olds picture

how do i get the picture to shrink? and hoe do i get them in those boxes u guys have on other articles with pictures?Tu-49 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the image from? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

www.simhq.com/_air4/air_143c.html here Tu-49 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

okay

i c i got restrected for vandalism today and i c now i am free one question: i sites the pics and the sites i got the info from y did i get hit with a vandalism thing? just wondering Tu-49 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)? wow so no one is answering this hmmm???Tu-49 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Catagorizing

i got this in Vietnam article where else should it go? Tu-49 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Could you be more specific? --Your friend, Darkest Hour 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About your priveious Q. Did you make sure you were not deleting other peoples edits and replacing them with nonsense? If so that is why U got the vandi. Message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Well i don't get you second but for ur first if u look in the Vietnam Article and operations in Vietnam, both metion Bolo some were Tu-49 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Alright at this point no more changes to itTu-49 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites/Footnote

A long as this article is, it really needs to cite its sources using notes or footnotes (see WP:CITE for further information). If this is done now, it will be much easier to identify what parts came from which source. If you place one link from your source, I will format it for you, and set up the footnotes section. You can then adapt that note for your next source, and so on. Once you have one source footnoted, any more cites from that source are easy to do; I can show you how to do that too. - BillCJ 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) explian in simpler terms please and please the line "Now Sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo" please leave itTu-49 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding that line! Any administrator who sees it will remove it. Quite simply put, this is an encyclopedia. Not a blog or a tv show. Plus this article has large amounts of extraneous information that doesn't belong. The section on how the Vietnam War started and the editorializing therein, violates NPOV, contains weasel words, and belongs in the article on the Vietnam War. I thank you for adding this article, but stop adding all of these violations of Wikipedia policy. It's going to take a long time to correct it as it is.--LWF 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BACK OFF DAMN IT YOU WILL NOW LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS IF THERE IS A SET OF RULES THIS PLACE HAS TO WRITE AN ARTICLE I SAY IT NEEDS CHANGING PEOPLE SEE A DIFFERENT TEXT IN THIS ONE THEY MAY WANT MORE OF THIS AND WE'LL GET MORE VISTIORSTu-49 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)!!!!

Your contributions are appreciated, but once you submit an article, it can be edited, and will be edited, by anyone. This is quite clear in the policies of wikipedia. But you are now bordering on personal attacks, which will get you blocked. Please realize people are trying to make this into a good article - this subject honestly has feature article potential. But you can't do it alone, and it won't get there if it reads like a Reader's Digest article.--Nobunaga24 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

look this article is good enough, please just leave it the way it is, please Tu-49 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC) im begging you

As stated above, this article is about an very interesting subject. I remember reading about it in a TimeLife Book a number of years ago. I think many people would want to read about it, and I thank you for the time you've spent putting it together. I've created articles myself, so I know it takes alot of work.

If I might make a suggestion: Take the article the way you like it, and post it on a blog, MySpace, or something similar. Make it EXACTLY the way you like it. Then sit back, and watch what happens here. Wikipedia has many editors with a vast range of knowledge, and access to materials such as books that other editors may not have. After several weeks, take a look, and see what they have done. I think you'll really like it. - BillCJ 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Billy, can i call you that? i thank you for you suggestion but i don't have a My spcae and will never get one if you are right and i will be happy, than this arictle will not lose its style the style is the thing that catches peoples attition, just plan information will just bore them to death (no offense writers and reader) and will if these articles have a style that people like them than i can expect there will be alot of people who will love wikipedia Tu-49 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Call me Bill, please. Actually, Wikipedia is doing quite well with the encyclopedic style. The English site now has over 1 and a half million articles. I understand that you like your style, but understand that Wikipedia is not the place for it. Again, what you have done here is a great start; don't be afraid to let others improve it. Hey, I've only been on Wiki 4 months, I still have alot to learn myself. - BillCJ 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ah im younger than u here but Bolo stays Tu-49 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) sorry not to sound mean

I've been here a little over a year, now.

One question; where did you get that picture of Olds? Because I think I may have seen it somewhere, which means it may be copyrighted, and thus illegal for us to use. If that is the case, then you could end up in trouble for using fraudulent license information. Unless it were deleted. Of course you could have actually produced that photo yourself. In which case the license is authentic.--LWF 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Look for it on picsearch, i got the site sorted but orphan bot got rid of it Tu-49 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the image will have to be deleted, I checked, and in order to use that image you must have the permission of the photographer. In which case the license would be different. As it is, you have claimed to be the photographer, which isn't true. I will propose the image for deletion. Sorry.--LWF 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

what? i did? how? Tu-49 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC) lets the pic go but i may need a picture of Olds for this article

cleanup tag added

My research has shown this is genuine: "Seven North Vietnamese MiG-21s are shot down during Operation Bolo, a mission to draw out the North Vietnamese fighters into an air-to-air battle against U.S. F-4Cs" (Air Force Times January 6, 2003 Monday).

However. The article needs a large cleanup to comply with WP policies. e.g. there are very large quotes - either paraphrase or remove them. Mark83 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

I apologize if I over reacted a bit in my last comment. I have wikifyed this article so it is now more fitting for an encyclopedia entry. All the information that belongs in this article has been kept, although some was rephrased.

• I rephrased the opening to be more suitable.
• I removed the portion on how the Vietnam War started, that belongs in the article Vietnam War
• And I revised the portion on why the F-4 had no gun, and corrected the info on the Sidewinder and Sparrow, the ranges were backwards
• Also I removed the info on the Atoll, it is already in that article
• I removed the comparisons between the MiG and Phantom, uncited and didn't really need to be stated that way
• Rephrased Olds beginnings in Vietnam, and start of the plan
• I removed the stuff about the Dogfight in WWII, since that wasn't pertinent to the article
• I made the planning portion more neutral, and merged the part about the pods into it
• Reworked the start of Olds flight to be more NPOV

I apologize again for over reacting. But if the article remains close to its current state it should be good.--LWF 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

kepp the events of Vietnam out but all the rest stays, and what does NPOV mean?Tu-49 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GOOD GOOD?????? ARE YOU CRAZY PUT ALLL THE STUFF BACK RIGHT NOW Tu-49 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will put it this way. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is meant for serious research. The facts are about all that belong in Wikipedia. And I don't recommend making demands like that, or being profane. Editors and Administrators generally look down on that. Also, on a side note, when typing a reply, be sure to skip a line, or it all runs together.--LWF 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

trust me, this kind will entertain people while they may not relize thier learning about this eventTu-49 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) keep it the way it is im begging you please Tu-49 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about we talk to the people at the Military History wikiproject and the Aviation Wikiproject? We can have them resolve the dispute.--LWF 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

alright but if they touch this article before we settle this, i won't be happy Tu-49 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC) so lets get them on the phone

I've posted requests at both projects. Although I think BillCJ's idea is a good one.--LWF 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View. Basically all articles should be neutral about their subject. They should stay with the facts, and be cited from reliable sources where ever possible, it's to prevent opinions from creeping in.--LWF 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if others can't edit it without you being mad I think the same should apply to you. I personally think we should go back to an earlier version, perhaps mine or the one before and agree to cease editing it until a decision is reached. Do you agree?--LWF 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

not to be mean but no we keep it the way it is now with no changes if we keep it to the way you had it as then Bolos style will be lost we show them what i had written down and any changes they make will be reported after they read the whole article. then we will make the changes but will keep it to the style i orignally wanted it to be is that okay? if not i understandTu-49 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC) and not to sound mean but i read you "help" on the history wiki discussion page and it sounds like you need back up not they way we are discussing hereTu-49 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Wikipedia could potentially be sued by the producers of "Dogfights" if they were to see it. It seems like this is a transcript of "Dogfights". Plus, no offense intended, but your grammar needs work, and some of the details in the article need citations. Plus, some of the details have nothing to do with the article. For example, while the dogfight Olds engaged in is interesting, it has nothing to do with Bolo. Also, I will quite simply say this, some of the phrasing is misleading, and could give people the wrong impression.

But could we halt editing from this version until a decision is reached?--LWF 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

we can and we will i said it was based on Dogfights I love that show so much thats the reason i made this article Dogfights is a great show Tu-49 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This still needs some Wikification... and, especially due to the arrangement of the sections, it still seems like it's about the TV show, not the battle. Zaku Two 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i understand, the new one looks a lot better thank you Tu-49 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image of Olds

I have nominated Image:UbonRobinOldsChappieJames.jpg. In order for you to have produced it, you would have had to have been the guy on the flightline, taking the picture.--LWF 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Image of olds new one is on but it needs set up help Tu-49 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibilty of Reversion

Tu-49, I believe we should revert it to my version. Can I do this without you changing it back?--LWF 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

well i mean if the project owners do see it i would think they want to see it in the form i have it in but if we can we can also have a different article created about bolo that has your version in it if we can do i say we do itTu-49 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, members of both projects have agreed that the current version should be changed. I'm not sure they saw my revision, but I will ask them to take a look at it. But we couldn't have two separate articles on the same subject. It leads to confusion, and the copyright issues still apply. Plus, if anyone wants to see it the way you had it, they can watch that episode of "Dogfights".--LWF 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

do i take that as a dis or as a complament? what is the version u have it as?Tu-49 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) i like to see it first before i make the changes remeber i make the final word if yes or noTu-49 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) not to sound mean or show ownership

It is meant as neither insult nor compliment, merely a statement. But you do not have the final word in this article, the community of Wikipedia does. Also, the revision is the last one I did, as I refrained from edit warring it should be easy to find.--LWF 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

well keep the Who is robin Olds thing and the MiG to F-4 but the rest you can chop around as long as the style of the article staysTu-49 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

okay i must leave now just keep the article till tommorrow so i can print it out then you can change but remeber the mission ended with NO F-4 phantoms losed and only 7 MiGs distroyed and the mission victory paragaph stays as will as the Who is Robin Olds the rest you can Change, if thats okay Tu-49 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to print it out, then you can press the history button at the top, click on the revision you want, then go to printable version and print it.--LWF 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my two cents. The Robin Olds section should not exist in TU-49's version. It is 1 sentence, and that is not good for an entire section? The mention in this revision] seems sufficient to me. Overall, I do not see a major problem reverting back to this version. It appears that not much content will be lost and the formatting is alot better. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

just for reference leave the Robin Olds thing please thats the only thing that i would like to have there also i have in the sources a picture of the QRC-160 pod i would like to put it in but all my past attempts failed so can some one give me a little hand? Also how do we know the thing about the F-4s crashing on the taxi way at home is true?Tu-49 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll get the citation, and it wasn't on the ground, they were doing rolls in the air and collided, no loss of life as I recall. Let me look in the book I found it in, Boyd.--LWF 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

well it really doesn't count because they were done with the mission but i'll have to see the citationTu-49 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll get the citation when I get home.--LWF 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

k ill waitTu-49 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Third party?

LWF and Tu-49: I go to Harvard and I'm majoring in military history. Could I get a copy of both your articles and the suggested revisions, and then I could act as an intermediary so we could resolve the dispute without having to resort to yelling and flame fights? --pandasandpenguins

sure--Tu-49 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree, but I would like to point out that I have refrained from flaming, or edit warring.--LWF 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

flaming? and yee i agree tooTu-49 20:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) wow no one has made a comment about this?Tu-49 00:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tu-49, I will work on the article this week. I will post my copy, and you can feel free to do whatever you like to it. --pandasandpenguins

okay where is it?Tu-49 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just revised the first half of the article. If it suits the COMMUNITY, good. If not, feel free to revise. That is, after all, the spirit of Wikipedia, is it not?

AHHHHH!!! im sorry i had to, i mean WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!Tu-49 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Robin Olds

I personally think it would improve the article to move the section on Olds, to the Robin Olds article. It isn't that important to have a section on a dogfight from World War II, in an article on Vietnam. I think it could really confuse people reading the article.--LWF 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

it tells about Olds meaning to Bolo and how he learned the laws of Dogfight Tu-49 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that paragraph isn't even about Bolo, it's about him, and it isn't about him learning how to dogfight, just that he was good at it. I still think that section belongs in the Robin Olds article. Plus the style is still wrong and there are rather large spelling errors.--LWF 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lean correct'em the section stayesTu-49 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like, I could talk to the Aviation and Military History projects to see what they think of the paragraph, and if it should stay or not.--LWF 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea lets talk to themTu-49 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus from both projects has been the section should be removed. Although I see that this has already been done, since the consensus was received.--LWF 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Urrhg okay im fine but im putting info about the Atoll missile in the text because the F-4 has detail of the AIM-9 and AIM-7 so its only fairTu-49 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing

On the Editing page where you add information, it states:

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
• Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include the vast majority of web pages or images.

See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing.

No one "owns" anything on Wikipedia; it is a community site governed by rules and guidelines. If you do not like a change another editor has made you need form a consensus (get others to agree with you) to change it back, rather than just reverting every change made. If you don't like these rules, you are free to try to get the rules changed first. Until then, you have to abide by them. If you don't like the rules on Wikipedia, and can't get them changed to your liking, then you probably need to find another website to contribute to.

As I and others have said here before, this is a great topic that needed to be here, and you did a good job getting it started. It has attracted a great amount of attention from other editors this past week, which says that people are interested in the topic. Let them help, even if it's not exactly what your vision of the page is. - BillCJ 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill Tu-49 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Atoll missile

for the thing about the Atoll missile on operation Bolo are you sure it was a tiwaneesse F-86 and Chinese MiG-17 I remeber hearing it was a MiG-15 the F-86 squared off with when the sidewinder missile got caught in the tail fin Tu-49 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Images...

I don't see a GNU license on those sites, and Tu-49 sure as hell isn't the creator of them. Zaku Two 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the only way my pic to get in i don't know who to contact the owners of the picturesTu-49 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So... you admit to it? Y'know, uploading images with false license declarations is a ban-able offense... Zaku Two 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Give us the list of all images you uploaded but didn't create. If you do this we might be able to get rid of them without you having to be blocked. Unless it can be proven that these images were taken by someone in the armed forces while they were doing their duty. In which case they are in the public domain.--LWF 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

the pictures in the articleTu-49 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

um....okay what i got abouth the ruse tactic and about the secondary mission in which the Mastermind made a similar mission to this i got that off a T.V show but i think its trueTu-49 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC), im looking for the citations now who did that to the page once i find him ill kiss'em *pardon that please figure of speech* its assomeTu-49 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Message about new editations

okay i like how this new article came out, but buckboard i would like to metion that earlyer on i metioned not to touch the accounts from the pilots, if it was nessecerary to edit them i would have known. also changes to other parts are apperceated in ways, just wanted to step up some of my concerns to those in future of editing Operation BoloTu-49 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want cooperation please give some. You edited out all of my source documentations from Boyne and Sherwood--done in the Harvard style, which is okay per wiki. The date set for Bolo was January 1 and it was postponed to January 2. Boyne's article has a typo--it says "Jan 2" in one paragraph but the context is clear in the next para that the date was January 1, and that most of the pilots, thinking that the weather would not make Jan 2 feasible either, were surprised when it was rescheduled for Jan 2. I have changed the documentation to Sherwood's Fast Movers, which makes clear the planned date was Jan. 1. And as has been mentioned stressed to you before, articles are not proprietary--when edits give or imply wrong information, they will be corrected--if not by me, then others.--Buckboard 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

okay well if it was postponed u should have stated it, cuz it conflicts with the starting paragraph which says it was on Jan 2Tu-49 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy in Background

The first two sections of the Background heading, Opposing aircraft and The MiG Threat both cover similar territory. Both mention the MiG 21's main or primary target being the F-105, for instance. Both talk about MiG agility. It's like two different authors wrote what they felt would be suitable and both versions appear here with no overall plan. Somebody want to stitch them together? Or separate them better? Binksternet 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on Content

Hello, I'm doing some research into Operation BOLO. I have a question on a certain portion of this article. Within the MiG Threat paragraph it states, "Rules of engagement that had previously permitted the F-4 MiGCAP to escort the F-105s in and out of the target area had been revised in December to limit MiGCAP penetration to the edge of SAM coverage." I would like to find the source document for this statement. Of all the articles and books I have found on Operation BOLO and Operation ROLLING THUNDER I have not seen any mention of the change in MiGCAP ROE. Any help in clarifying this statement would be greatly appreciated. Daneman3 May 22, 2008

See my response on my talk page to your question there.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Great article...

Great article, it's reads very well. Could do with some more images though. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Plane pictures

Neither of the planes pictured are known to have participated in the operation. The F-4C Phantom II that's at the Pacific Coast Air Museum wasn't attached to the 8th TFW until March 1967, two months after the operation.[1] There's no indication that the MiG-21PF in the picture was involved in any way. Maybe we should edit the captions to indicate that these are just planes like the ones which participated. Rezin (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Bolo. 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/20061031102636/http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/indexe.html to http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/indexe.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Missiles

If it's of any interest, Ian Black, in McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom: Owners' Workshop Manual (Haynes Publishing, Yeovil & Newbury Park CA, 2011, ISBN 978 1 84425 996 0), p.46, mentions that F-4 missile expenditure in the fight was 18 AIM-7 Sparrows for four claimed kills and 12 AIM-9 Sidewinders for three claimed kills: broadly a 1:4 success rate. However, the Vietnamese only in fact lost five MiG-21s. (US pilots generally overclaimed about 50%, which is not bad as these things go; German day-fighter pilots in the Second World War tended to claim about 200% more aircraft than they had actually destroyed.) So from 30 missile shots, the Phantoms gained a 1:6 success rate, which was fairly normal for those weapons at the time.

This is not counting missiles that failed on the pylons and could not be launched. Capt (later Lt-Col) Everett T 'Razz' Raspberry, in 'Wolf Pack Assassin: Confessions of a MiG Killer', as told to James P Busha, FlyPast, May 2013, pp.83-89), mentions that, after tanking en route from Ubon, he proceeded to the combat area when he should not have done, because he didn't have enough missiles responding. 'The rule was you had to have at least two good radar missiles and two heat-seekers before you left the tanker. Well, when I checked out all my missiles I found I had only one good one out of my eight. I wasn't about to miss out tangling with a MiG so I kept my mouth shut and kept on going.' The existence of the two-plus-two rule suggests that 50% failure was normal. Raspberry had served as an instructor at the inaugural F-4C Fighter Weapons School at Nellis AFB, for which reason Col Olds asked him to train the Bolo crews specially: 'Colonel Olds came to me and said, " ... You know these guys don't know a whole hell of a lot about air-to-air or combat air manoeuvring or missiles for that matter -- so teach them!" ' But Raspberry admits: 'The problem was I had never fired a missile from an F-4 before; in reality not many of us had.' This is a surprising indication of the depth of the US fighter force's problems in Vietnam: poorly functioning hardware and little idea how to use it. Raspberry's one functioning missile, on the day, was a Sidewinder, and he claimed a MiG with it. 'Suddenly, just before he got to the cloud deck, the MiG-21 reversed his turn and I knew this was my one chance. I went to zero 'g' [the Sidewinder could only launch between -1g and +2g, an awkward constraint in a dogfight] and had my pipper right on him and squeezed the missile off. That AIM-9 shot out like a bullet and impacted right between the MiG's cockpit and tailpipe. He swapped ends and stalled out, falling into the undercast. I almost spun in myself, watching him spin down.' Because of the undercast, the Americans could not see their supposed victims hit the ground, and although you can't recover an F-4 from a spin -- in the RAF you were warned never on any account to spin a Phantom (Black p.133 -- 'Spinning the Phantom is not good. Crews were made to watch various "horror" videos of F-4s in flat spins, inverted spins and total departures, and the prognosis for a full recovery, as doctors would say, is not good' -- the author is a 1,000-hour Phantom navigator who went on to become a 500-hour Lightning pilot, sole successful candidate on the last Lightning training course) -- you can recover a MiG-21, so it's not known if Raspberry's MiG is one of the five actual victims or one of the two overclaims. If a Sidewinder makes a good hit, the target aircraft should no longer be in one piece as this MiG apparently was.

Raspberry concludes: 'The MiGs became scarce for a short time as they re-evaluated their tactics and then came back at us with a vengeance during the spring of 1967.' And MiG-21s continued to be a considerable nuisance for the next five years. What is notable about Operation Bolo is not so much that the most advanced US fighters, with specially-trained crews, a careful deception plan and the advantage of real-time ELINT from the RC-130 on station, could offer the Vietnamese a bit of a party, but that a single squadron of 16 Vietnamese MiG-21s could cause the US military colossus such an immense conniption fit.

Incidentally, the name of Raspberry's guy-in-back on Bolo was Lt Robert Weston, not 'Western' as the article claims. Although it was almost a quarter-century since the days of the Tuskegee Airmen, Weston, being black, still stands out as unique in group photos of Olds's Phantom crews. At that time, Phantom backseaters were all qualified fighter pilots.

Republished internet version of Raspberry's article here: http://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fj-2014-april.pdf?746277 Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Bolo. 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/20090904012140/http://www.mapsairmuseum.org/f-4_phantom.htm to http://www.mapsairmuseum.org/f-4_phantom.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020130153/http://www.8tfw.com/ to http://www.8tfw.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

F-4 losses

The Robin Olds section refers to three F-4s lost in September and October 1966, adding this was "equal to the number of F-4s lost in the previous 12 years."

The first flight of an F-4 was in May 1958 and the F-4 entered service with the US Navy in March 1961, so this can't be a useful observation as is. Having no idea what timespan or specific comparison was intended here, I'm just going to remove this part of the sentence, but if someone can figure out how to make sense of it, it seems like a useful comment in principle and should be restored. 24.10.14.2 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)