Talk:Oil campaign of World War II

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / British / European / German / United States / World War II B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugs2109 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article seems to be pulling lots of things into itself (eg oil plan redirect) when it ought to be spawning new articles with detailed content leaving the broader brush here.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving details of the campaign also means having to explain why on some occasions the campaign was not pursued with vigour despite the belief in higher echelons that it was important.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen the photo before, the author of the book claims it is one of the most famous photos of WW2. May I suggest the photo caption is changed? --mgaved (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, but the caption also mentions the aircraft lifting its starboard wing. This is wrong, the aircraft is clearly in a starboard turn and its port wing is up. I take the liberty to change this. I will also remove the passage about the image being one of the most famous photos and change into saying that it simply shows the aircraft over Ploesti. AadaamS (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a well-known image, but why create controversy over trivia?

And famous to whom? There are a lot of World War II belligerents.

It is definitely the larboard wing. Varlaam (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should mention that the target was commonly, or perhaps usually, called Ploesti in English during this period.
Varlaam (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harris referred to specific targets contemptuously as "panacea targets". This article infers that Harris was little more than a homicidal maniac who killed 50,00 aircrew and hundreds of thousands of civilians while accomplishing little militarily. Correct ? In modern terms this article presents evidence for just/intelligent war vs unjust/brainless war. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A panacea is a solution to all things. Is it the case that Harris did not believe that attacking a single target would be the answer to everything as the supporters of the idea claimed? Are their sources that interpret Harris' comment? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my criticism of Harris was very excessive. But yes, Harris appears to use the term Panacea to criticise the idea that attacking single particular aspects of Germany's infrastructure could be decisive in winning the war. He appears to have been wrong in hindsight - but it may not have been so clearcut at time, as he implies. I raised this because a major quality discussion of the issue would be useful here - but it is beyond my knowledge to contribute to. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can chip away at bits of the article in the meantime. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, that we have monthly bomb tonnage, but not even annual figures for oil production, which after all was what the bombing was about. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oil Campaign of World War II. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jul44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html  Jim.henderson (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207002424/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/diary_france.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary_france.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121011155524/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary1941_1.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary1941_1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090303223416/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/diary1941_2.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary1941_2.html {{Done|Jim.henderson (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]