Talk:North American A-36

Aircraft Name

I came redirected from A-36 Apache, but this page names the plane "Invader" and says everybody called it a "Mustang" anyway. What about this name "Apache"? seems there should be a mention. [[217.132.5.41]]

Apache was the initial semi-official US name for the XP-51 but it was quickly overtaken in use by the original RAF name of Mustang. Some sources confuse the Apache (Mustang) name with the A-36 and although the A-36 was allocated a name by the RAF, which was Invader, the British didn't subsequently order any. The A-36s used by the US in the Mediterranean were actually referred-to by the pilots themselves as 'Mustangs', although this would possibly have been technically incorrect.

At the time the US didn't give its aircraft offical names - they were just referred-to by the designation, e.g., B-17, P-39 etc. Names like Flying Fortress and Airacobra were actually manufacturer's publicity names and these were often looked upon with some derision within the services themselves. It was only later that the US adopted the practice of giving aircraft 'official' names. In many cases, these names were just carried over from the British ones, e.g., Lightning, (P-38), Liberator (B-24) etc.

This naming practice also applied to tanks and is the reason that so many US WW II tank types also have names originally applied by the British, e.g., Lee/Grant, Sherman, Stuart, etc.

Ian Dunster 12:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Our dive bombers were known as A-36 Invaders. Actually they were nothing more than the famous P-51 Mustang equipped with diving brakes. For a long time they didn't hae any name at all, and then one day in Sicily one of the pilots of the squadron said, "Why don't we call them Invaders, since we're invading?"

The name was carried home in newspaper dispatches, and soon even the company that made them called them Invaders. The pilot who originated the name was Lieutenant Robert B. Walsh, of Felt, Idaho. ~ Ernie Pyle Brave Men, 1944. Rklawton (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The RAF use of the name Invader for the A-36 pre-dates their use in Italy by several years. The 'Invader' name was only officially used by the US for the A-26 (Later B-26).

Apache was the early US name for the two NA-73s (Mustang Mk I) supplied to the USAAC, and which remained unflown and unwanted at Wright Field for over a year after their delivery, such was the US enthusiasm for the 'little fighter'. Later the British name was adopted, and the Apache name dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a 1943 issue of Flight showing the "Invader" RAF name for the A-36 here: [1] .. and another 1944 one here: [2] ... and a 1944 news item - Allied Invaders - on the possible confusion that may arise due to the USAAF naming the A-26 "Invader" here: [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The P51 was always referred to as the Mustang by the US during WW2. At NO TIME was the name 'Invader' or 'Apache' used in official sources. (The reason is simple - the US government did not want the reveal to the Axis that in the A-36 they had essentially a 'new' aircraft type.) Certainly the Invader was a choice name by many of its squadrons; 'Apache'? never!!Loates Jr (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Andy L

"No Credits"?

The other reason is that the Mustang was still ill-considered by the USAAF and that no credits could be obtained for it. In the second paragraph of the article, the foregoing sentence appears. What does the statement "...no credits could be obtained for it" mean? Does this mean production allocation credit, priority or what? --TGC55 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean, but I'll try to ask around. - BillCJ 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to add specs (dims only) based on the NMUSAF page for this a/c but I don't know how to make it look "right" and to cite NMUSAF as the source. Help would be much appreciated•Now done. Nigel Ish 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi TGC55 and BillCJ: There are two possible interpretations for the "credits" mentioned. In the prewar and lead up to war (1939-1941) period, North American Aviation was not considered a fighter manufacturer and had found it difficult to obtain USAAC support for their NA-73X project. The British Purchasing Authority pushed for the acceptance of the nascent Mustang and were able to fund the program through the use of Lend-Lease arrangements, which amounted to "credits." However, I believe that the original Wikipedia editor actually referred to the period in which the first US contract for a Mustang was obtained. NAA President, "Dutch" Kindelberger, had attempted to sell the project to no avail, mainly because all available funding for "new" fighter projects had run out in 1941. In a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" deal, the USAAC did make him aware that there were still "credits" eligible for development and procurement of a dive bomber. With P-51 (Mustang I) preliminary trials using bomb shackles to carry long-range tanks already completed, it was a matter of turning the data from the "long range" ferry program into a new configuration- voila, the A-36 "Apache" (BTW the original name for the USAAC variant of the Mustang). Bzuk 02:00 14 January 2007 (UTC)- and Nigel Ish just go ahead and submit your work, other editors will go over it and make the necessary adjustments for proper citations.

Both the NA-73 Mustang design and initial orders, and the Packard Merlin order, were paid for by Britain via the British Purchasing Commission with cash under Cash and Carry before Lend Lease existed and the first subsequent US orders for the NA-73 were not for the use of the USAAC but were for 600 aircraft to be supplied to Britain under the terms of the Lend Lease scheme - under the terms of this scheme aircraft first had to be taken onto the books of the USAAC/USAAF which is also why the Mustang and Packard Merlin had to be given official US designations. Otherwise, both were the results of private contracts between the UK and the respective manufacturers. The only official US government involvement was to give the two manufacturers permission, which was required due to the Neutrality Acts, to accept the British orders.

"Apache" was NAA's 'in house' name for the NA-73 and "Invader" was the UK Air Ministry name allocated to the NA-97 just as "Mustang" was the UK name for the NA-73 and NA-83. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done

This is a very well done article. I was thrilled to see Robert W. Gruenhagen's book as one of the references (it's always been one of my favorites, especially his treatment of the development aspects of the Mustang design). The P-51 article, found elsewhere on this site, could certainly benefit from some of Mr. Gruenhagen's research, as well as the other excellent works listed as references! Good show!192.100.70.210 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Straight Down

You might like to take a look at my book on the A-36, which was first published in 2000 by Crecy and is full of interview with A-36 pilots. It is the only full-length book about this airplane. Incidently, the RAF DID use a few despite your comments to the contrary. Peter C Smith http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Straight.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by PETERCHARLESSMITH (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I stand corrected - most of my reference books are twenty or thirty years old so may somewhat be out of date. Be interested to know what the RAF pilots called them - Invaders or Mustangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Operational Record Books of the RAF Flight that operated the A-36 in the MTO and the Combat Reports by the pilots that flew them record them as "Mustang" - copies held in UK National Archives AIR27 series for ORBs and AIR50 series for Combat Reports. 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

First use in combat

In the information box it names the first flight was in October 1942. So the first us in combat is NOT the 19 August 1942!!! Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.186.8 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the appropriate sections carefully as the dates in question are linked to two different marks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

RAF and USAAF disappointed?

Were the RAF and USAAF disappointed in the high-altitude performance of the Mustang I and P-51 respectively? I doubt it: as Bert Kinzey says in his book on the P-51 "In numerous accounts about the development of the Allison powered Mustang it has been stated that the poor performance at high altitudes was a surprise and disappointment to the British and to the USAAF as well. This simply is not so. The aircraft designers of that day had more than sufficient knowledge of powerplants and they were capable of determining that the Allison engine and supercharger combination installed in the aircraft would have a drop in performance above 15,000 feet....two of the P-51s ordered even before the flight of the first XP-51 were reserved for testing with a Packard built Merlin." (Kinzey 1996, p.7.)

I have to agree - I doubt if the RAF, who were already familiar with Allison engines with their P-40 Tomahawks, would have known all about the high-altitude capabilities of the Allison engines, as would the USAAF with their P-40s and P-39s. It is an arguable POV to use the word "disappointed" when describing the RAF's opinion of the Mustang I. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh. It appears I've been victim of the bad sources. :( What I've read always called it disappointing. If that's wrong, absoultely, take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the RAF were expecting much of a high-altitude performance from the Mustang I anyway, as they already had the contemporary Mark of Spitfire for any high-altitude work. The Mustang was basically ordered (the RAF originally asked NA to make Tomahawks) to make up the numbers of fighters available greater, so a limited altitude performance would have been expected, the RAF being well acquainted with the Allison's limited supercharging - referred-to by some pilots as being 'gutless' above ~12,000-15,000ft - from their use of the Tomahawk. So from the RAF's point of view, they were just getting a slightly-more modern Tomahawk.

The Allison-Mustangs were like the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk, in that they were capable enough for use in the Desert War, where most of the air operations were in support of ground forces, i.e., below 10,000ft. If they had been tried against the Lufwaffe during the Battle of Britain they would not have been much use simply because they couldn't fight at the altitudes the German bombers came over at, c. 15,000-25,000ft. The attacker dictates the tactics, and if he chooses to come over and bomb you from 20,000ft, it's not much use asking him to fly a bit lower so you can shoot him down. This is why the Hurricane, slower than both the Tomahawk and Airacobra, was usable during the Battle, whereas the latter two were not. And if the Allison-Mustang had been available then, the same would apply. As it was, the RAF used all of their Allison-Mustangs for Army Co-operation, which in effect, meant low-level tactical photo reconnaissance, at-which it was very good.

As for the USAAC, well they weren't really interested in the Mustang anyway, and it wasn't until the need for a long-range escort fighter became urgent that they started to take notice of the aircraft. By then it had been re-engined with the Merlin so for them it came along at the right time and in the right place. And it was only because Jimmy Doolittle specifically asked for the Merlin-Mustang to replace the Lightnings and Thunderbolts for all bomber escort duties that the Mustang became popular in US circles.

Oh, and BTW, the reason that the British Purchasing Commission (BPC) asked North American to build Tomahawks was because the P-40 was the only US-designed fighter aeroplane that had any sort of successful combat record against a first-rate opponent. Of the aircraft designs ordered by the BPC, such as the Lightning and Airacobra, all the others had proved of little use, which is why further orders for these aircraft were cancelled. At that time (1940) no other US-designed aircraft had any combat record against a competent opponent - all US aircraft used in WW I had been either French or British designs, which meant the contemporary 1940 US designs had no 'track record'. So the British asked NA to build Tomahawks, as they knew they were at least usable, albeit low-down.

- I nearly forgot - that's also why the BPC made it a requirement of NA getting the contact for a new fighter (the Mustang) that they purchase aerodynamic data for the P-40 from Curtiss. North American had just produced an excellent little trainer aircraft called the Harvard, but a trainer is not the same as a high-speed fighter, and the British wanted to make sure that NA had the necessary aerodynamic knowledge for designing something around twice as fast as their trainer. NA had never built a fighter before, and being in a hurry, the British wanted to makes sure NA didn't make any avoidable mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A careful look at the chronology of orders etc will show that the USAAC/USAAF were interested in the Mustang from the start, hence the requirement in the order for the British NA-73 Mustang Is that two of these be allocated to the USAAC for testing - because the priority was to build the British Mustangs the first XP-51 41-038 arrived in August 1941; the first order for P-51s with 4 20mm cannon was placed in July '41. The problem was that the expansion from a small, peacetime air-force to wartime requirements meant that there was a set of conflicting requirements for funding and production suddenly being imposed. There were already other fighters - P-38, P-39 and P-40 - available and the priority was to build as many of these and get them into service asap, as well as getting pilots, ground crew etc trained and a proper supply/servicing echelon sorted out; it wasn't as simple as snapping the fingers and BANG here's a new fighter in service, complete with everything needed to maintain and fly it. To keep the Mustang in production, as noted in this article, money allocated for dive bombers was used to produce the A-36 pending more funding being made available for fighters, noting that this also included the new P-47.

"A careful look at the chronology of orders etc will show that the USAAC/USAAF were interested in the Mustang from the start": Not strictly true. The US Army Air Corps ordered two for evaluation purposes as that was SOP. No military equipment could be sold overseas unless it had been evaluated first by the appropriate arm of the US military. The USAAC didn't think they needed yet another type of fighter, as they didn't fully appreciate the fact that as a brand new design it offered far more growth potential than the P39 or P40, and indeed in its earlier marques the P51 only greately outclassed the P40 in range. Its other advantages were not great enough to warrant the replacement of the P40, which was already 'combat-proven' and a known factor.Loates Jr (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Andy L

It also needs to be noted that the order for P-51s for the USAAF stipulated that two of them be fitted and tested with R-R Merlins before the first P-51 flew - if it wasn't for this provision the P-51B would not have got into production and service when it did - the USAAC/USAAF were not nearly as tardy in recognising the Mustang as some like to make out. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Standardized munition naming

I note with some puzzlement the strange use of ".30 in (7.62 mm) caliber" and ".50 in (12.7 mm) caliber" in place of the traditional "30 caliber (7.62)" and "50 caliber (12.7 mm)". This is not used by any system of munitions known and looks odd as it is now. Can this be corrected to bring the entire descriptive name together instead of the current article misuse of embedding the specific mm size within the name and adding a superfluous "in" within the standard measures of "50 caliber", "30 caliber", etc since these aircraft did not use this method of describing weapons and ammunition sizes in this way it throws the flavor of the article off. The written term ".50 in" is spoken "point five inch", such a mouth full would never have been used at the time to describe munitions and weapons. The standard would be to say "fifty caliber". The term .50 in would only have been used to describe bolts and other hardware not munitions during world war two.

Specifications: Armament

Can anyone supply the rounds per gun (RPG) number for the standard 50 calibre gun use on this aircraft? I figure the ammo tanks were all a Mil-STD design and it should be easy to identify and supply for this section of the article.

As an aside. I agree with the writer of the immediately prior comment, servicemen commonly called them 50 calibre weapons, almost everywhere in the world. But that was a slang term commonly used in the USA and USAAF. The international standard terminology is ".50 in" with the metric equivalent following as required by Wikipedia. As an editor of military articles, herein, I suggest that it will do no harm to use the colloquial terms after the initial correct designation except again in the specifications section. But please don't suggest that every article is to be amended! The workload would be impossible. Just remember, also, that non-US readers are not always up with current US military colloquial terms, even very long-standing ones. Remember, too, that translators of these articles, from English, need the correct terminology to be able to translate accurately or to check facts. Lin (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Screaming helldivers? Not bloody likely.

While it may be sourced to an (English-language) book, the prospect that any German ever knew this aircraft as a "screaming helldiver" is extremely remote. While one could laboriously construct such a phrase in German, it sounds utterly bizarre. (e.g. "Höllentaucher" would literally mean "hell diver", but this phrase has no real meaning in German.) As a more general matter, insofar as soldiers came up with nicknames for enemy units or equipment, they tended to make light of the enemy (e.g. "flying sewing machine", "Stalin's organ" (for the Katyusha rocket launcher), "Tommy cooker" (for the rather flammable Sherman tank), "flying pencil" (the British nickname for the slender Dornier 17 bomber) etc.), and not to imply fear of enemy prowess. This smacks of postwar bravado by some gung-ho American aviation writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.175.183 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually share your doubts, and remarked on that line as well. But on Wikipedia, anything that was printed in a book is considered "fact" (in spite of the fact that I have a book right here that I could use as a reference that claims that the M1 Carbine was "the carbine version of the M1 Garand"), and unless you can find a referenced source stating that they DIDN'T ever call it that, it stays. One of the many problems with Wikipedia that has just seemed to get worse and worse lately. I used to think pretty positively about Wikipedia, but I'm beginning to have recurring doubts. As for the enemy always "making light" of the enemy, that is not true. The F4U Corsair was (supposedly) "Whistling Death" to the Japanese, the P-38 was "The Fork-tailed Devil" to the Germans. The Short Sunderland is often claimed to be called "The Flying Porcupine" due to its "heavy armament", although I personally suspect that it had more to do with the numerous aircraft liberally festooned with large radar antennae arrayed all over their fuselages, since the actual number of guns for a typical early-model Sunderland was not particularly great, and all of small-caliber. And others that I can't think of off the top of my head...although the most nasty nicknames tended to be towards their OWN equipment when they felt it was inferior). But yes, most tended to have an intentionally mocking title, and my first question is "how does an A-36 pilot know what the enemy troops he bombed and strafed nicknamed his aircraft". How many of them knew German, or interrogated POW's? How many POW's did he talk to that verified this claim? If one HAD said it, it could have been a single guy sucking up to his captors. More likely, it's a pilot in a neglected arm of the service making things up, or at best, repeating something his commanders told him during the war in order to improve morale. But again, as it's referenced, therefore it is "fact" on Wikipedia. Unless you can find a book where someone went out of their way to refute the claims made by a single pilot in his memoirs. Good luck!.45Colt 09:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Much of the problem with what 'the enemy' called an aircraft or tank or whatever is often an issue of public morale. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Information told the public in WW2 the Japanese referred to the Beaufighter as 'the whispering death' (allegedly, in one otherwise trustworthy source, due to the quiet running of its sleeve-valve engines), the P-38 by the 'krauts' as the fork-tailed devil, and so on. Grist for the mill, if you like. There are other oddities as well; I was reading about an interview by Liddel Hart with IIRC Guderian, the latter claimed to the best of his knowledge the term Blitzkrieg was not German in origin, the implication being that it was two German words spliced together by an English speaker in the belief that if the Germans carried out a lightning war, then they must obviously themselves call it 'Blitzkrieg'. Be very careful of using alleged 'enemy' epithets for allied equipment, or alleged enemy terms or phrases; for example the Russian name 'grave for seven brothers' to describe the medium tank M3 was a spurious post-war invention to belittle the British and American supply efforts to the Soviets during WW2. The appellations "Whispering Death" or "Whistling Death" or "Fork-tail Devil", or "Flying Porcupine" are hardly likely to given to any propeller-driven combat aircraft, by ANY enemy . . . most likely something more appropriate; what's Japanese for "multiple f*@k*&g round-eyed ba*&^rds"? THAT I could believe!!~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"Heaviest armament"

British Mustang I's were Allison-engined, and armed with 4 x 20mm cannon. I'm pretty sure under most standards of armament power, 4 x Hispano cannons is considered more powerful than 6 x .50cals, due to much higher explosive power, weight of fire, etc. I'd say that 6 x .50cals is the heaviest armament of the US service Allison engined Mustangs, not the heaviest altogether. If 6 x .50cals was more powerful than 4 x 20mm, the US wouldn't have been trying to replace the "6 x .50cal" armament with a standard "4 x 20mm" armament throughout the war. This decision was made before the war was even started, IIRC, but was foiled due to the US-made Hispanos poor reliability and the exigencies of war...they needed aircraft armed with SOMETHING, and 6 x .50cals was good enough, if not as ideal as 4 x 20mm cannon..45Colt 09:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No additional protection against ground fire← e.g. armor plate?

Given that the type was conceived as a ground attacker, it seems noteworthy that there were no additional protective measures against ground fire, compared to the P-51, for the pilot at least.

Was this really the case and what was the reasoning – something along the lines of speed being the best defense?

Grant | Talk 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Article title

Today, two users have attempted to move the article and/or change the lead of North American A-36 Apache to replace "Apache" with "Mustang". Both users have made such changes on several occasions in the past, but neither have attempted to discuss it on this talk page. The last major discussion about the name was over 12 years ago. One of these users has claimed that the USAF Museum did research a few years back and settled on " Mustang" as the historical official name, but did not provide any sources on this.as far as I can tell. But if such sources can be found and cited, it may finally help to settle the issue. If nothing else, "Mustang" is by far the most common name for the "A-36". The article could be moved to "North American A-36 Mustang" on that basis, but given the past controversy, a WP:RM really needs to be held first. BilCat (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Most recent research, including recent access to documentation held by Boeing from the North American Aviation archives, shows that the A-36 was given the official name "Mustang". This is confirmed by a letter from Dutch Kindelberger of NAA to the USAF advising that all aircraft of the P-51 and A-36 types, following the naming of the initial NA-73 type in accordance with the name given to the type by the British, would be "Mustang". Also confirmed by NAA factory documentation including maintenance and parts listing catalogues. The late Michael Vorassi on the P-51 Special Interest Group (P51SIG) website, in the early 2000s had conclusively identified that officially the A-36 had never been called "Apache" by either NAA or the USAAF. This research was then picked up and expanded by Tom Griffith in conjunction with a number of other dedicated Mustang researchers. The results from that research were presented to the management of the National Museum of the USAF with the result that they have changed the display board in front of the A-36 at NMUSAF and their online information to reflect the "Mustang" name for the A-36. The "Apache" name was a name proposed for a short period and used for a very short period by the marketing department of NAA when they were first trying to interest the USAAF in the early NA-73/NA-83 Mustang Mk.I. The print adverts, which only ran for a very short space of time, show an aircraft with the characteristics of the Mustang Mk.I diving and refer to the "Apache" for the USAAF - but these adverts were quickly dropped and all other NAA adverts only refer to the "Mustang". For a short period, the "Apache" name was also considered as an option for the NA-91 Mustang P-51 or Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service, but this was soon rejected and "Mustang" was standardised. The proposed designation given by the RAF for the A-36 if it had entered RAF service was "Mustang Mk.I (Dive-Bomber)" - details in Air Ministry files held in UK National Archives. The RAF did not name it "Invader". The use of the "Invader" name in relation to the A-36 has its origins in the USAAF units using the A-36 in the MTO in WW2 who put forward the name as a way to differentiate their variant of the Mustang from the others. It gained some semi-official traction with a proposal making it to the War Office in Washington, where it was ultimately rejected. However, the newspaper dispatches quoted below did get some circulation and hence why in that same timeframe the name also was picked up and used in the articles in the 1943 and 1944 editions of Flight Magazine in the UK and even a War Office Aircraft Recognition Guide produced in late 1943. But USAAF only officially recognised the A-36 as "Mustang". The origins of the attachment of the "Apache" name to the A-36 from the research that was done by Vorassi and Griffith and others, appears to go back to a mis-reading of part of Gruenhagens seminal work of the P-51 by a aviation magazine writer in the early 1970s. That article was then widely read and quoted and the error spread from there. In two more recent published works on the Mustang, P-51B Mustang: North American’s Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force Hardcover – August 4, 2020 by James William "Bill" Marshall (Author), Lowell F. Ford (Author), Col (Ret.) Robert W. Gruenhagen (Foreword), Osprey Publishing, ISBN-10 1472839668 and Mustang: The Untold Story by Matthew Willis, Hardback, ISBN: 9781913295882, Publisher: Crecy Publishing, Title Release: March 2021 - the details of the correct name of the A-36 as being 'Mustang" is explored and reference to original documentation made, plus the sources of the erroneous "Apache" and "Invader" names to the type is also covered. Both these books make use of new material that has come from various company and official archives that was not available to the earlier researchers. There are a number of other new books about the A-36 and the P-51 in the works that are taking advantage of material that is still only now being released and made accesible from various sources to update and correct the information publically available about the 'Mustang". I have noted that a lot of the books quoted and cited as references on the A-36 (and more broadly on Wiki pages covering the P-51) are quite dated publications, many, if not most written in the 1960s and 1970s and are only as good as the source material available to the authors at that time. As such, many of them contain errors of fact and omission in light of later rearch and access to material that has been released for public access in more recent years. 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)268SqdnRAFHistorian

268SqdnRAFHistorian Whether the name "Apache" was official or not is irrelevant, as the name "Mustang" was never official as you say it was. The USAAF was not in the practice of assigning official names in the early 1940s, though pilots and the media would unofficially refer to them by unofficial names, which were usually the aircrafts' RAF names. It should also be noted that just because a designation or name is used in official documents, that does not mean that said designation or name is itself official. A good example of this is the Hughes D-2, which was referred to under the bogus designations "XP-73" and "XA-37" in its USAAF prototype production contract. Since both "Apache" and "Mustang" were unofficial, WP:COMMONNAME must be applied here, and "Apache" being used by a vast majority of sources, it is clearly the most common name. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Air Force Magazine has a short question from a reader and a response from the editor, published in 1948. The editors say this: "The Invader was a P-51 with dive brakes. It was also known as the Apache by the English who were first to use it in combat." Similarly, Flying magazine's editor explained to a reader in 1944 that neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names. "The Mustang is used by the AAF in two versions: the P-51 fighter and the A-36 attack-fighter. Officially, both versions are known only as the Mustang." Interesting viewpoints from contemporary experts. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA based on your response I therefore take it that you have not seen the original correspondence between North American Aviation and the USAAF in July 1942 regarding the names to be given to aircraft manufactured by North American Aviation. Similarly, you have not seen the correspondence generated by the US War Office and USAAF in 1942 to the various aircraft manufacturers and then promulgated broadly setting out the arrangements for naming aircraft in service with the USAAF. North American Aviation, in correspondence from Dutch Kindelberger set out that for P-51 aircraft including the A-36, in accordance with the name originally chosen by the British to be named "Mustang", the B-25 to be named "Mitchell", whilst the AT-6 had the interesting annotation to be named "Texan (but to be known as Harvard for the RAF)". Details of this and copies of some of this documentation are included in the above mentioned book published in 2020 by Lowell&Ford and summarised in the book published by Willis in early 2021. The Mustang name appears on all the official NAA produced Pilot's Notes, Erection and Maintenance Manuals, Parts Lists, even in the data blocks of the factory produced blueprints for manufacturing and repair/servicing purposes. It also appears in the USAAF issue of their own publications, as well as in War Office Aircraft Recognition Manuals and other official publications from 1942 onwards. There are also the lists of official names for aircraft operated by the USAAF, which were in part used and referred to in the correspondence relating to the rejection of the proposed use of the "Invader" name to the A-36 because it had already been offically allocated to the A-26. What is even more interesting in the USAAF listing of official aircraft names, is the column giving the alternate name that had been adopted by the RAF with examples being C-47 "Skytrain" for USAAF, but "Dakota" for RAF, Curtiss P-40 "Warhawk" for USAAF, but "Kittyhawk" for RAF, and so on. The use of the name "Apache" in relation to the A-36 is an error in fact and is not irrelevant. To continue to perpetuate an error that was made and repeated because it is "used by a vast majority of sources" flies in the face of historical accuracy and the truth. The simple fact that the NMUSAF has looked at the evidence and chosen to correct their information boards on their exhibits and their online information on the A-36 to name it as "Mustang" based on the facts, not a popular misconcepton or error, should be enough. 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

268SqdnRAFHistorian Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Where can this correspondence be found? I'd like to see this for myself. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that I am not necessarily against renaming this article to the "Mustang" name as long as it can be proven without a doubt that the A-36 was indeed officially named. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If the requested correspondence is brought here, it would be of limited use as a primary source, less definitive than WP:SECONDARY sources which are the main foundation of all Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If the disputed part of the title is whether its 'Apache' or 'Mustang' then why not just have it at North American A-36 and whatever service names may or not have been used officially or unofficially can be covered in the article text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - ZLEA _T\^C 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Question - @El C: - Will answers here suffice for a consensus to move the article to North American A-36, perhaps as a temporary measure while other options are considered in time, or do you require formal move proposal? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

BilCat, if support for the proposal relative to opposition against it deem it so, sure. Probably best to give it a week or so, though (RM time frame). El_C 21:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the many pages of research material on this that may be required to be posted, linked in order for those involved in considering the Mustang/Apache/Invader name conundrum, I tried to figure out best way to provide access. Some of the documentation I have seen I am unable to publicly share as it forms part of the content of a future publication and original copyright is still retained by Boeing (who have copyright over all the old North American Aviation Archives documentation and photographs in their collection). However, there are two publicly posted and citeable sources on other websites I will provide links to: http://www.thehangardeck.com/news/2019/3/16/the-a-36-by-any-other-name - this article is from a couple of years back and since then the author has had access to some of the more recently shared documentation. Of note, it was Tom Griffith, working of the original research of the late Michael Vorassi, who provided the evidence to the National Museum of the USAF that saw them change their display boards and online information to reflect the A-36 being named Mustang not Apache. Second is a thread on the WW2aircraft website where a copy one of the key documents being one of the telexes from Dutch Kindelberger of NAA to the USAAF is reproduced. The thread there also has some more detail on the timeline of A-36 acquisition and naming in the discussion. The key posts in this thread are those that are from William 'Bill' Marshall, who with Lowell Ford (who used to work for NAA and then Rockwell, then Boeing, who was involved in preservation and archiving of much of NAAs original documentation) with input and review from Bob Gruenhagen, researched and wrote the 2020 published "P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild That Saved the Eighth Air Force" which covers development of the Mustang family from the NA-73X, thru the NA-73/NA-83 Mustang Mk.I, NA-91 P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, NA-97 A-36A, NA-99 P-51A/Mustang Mk.II to the NA102/3/4 P-51B/C Mustang Mk.III and early development of the P-51D. The naming and nomenclature of the various members of the Mustang family leading up to the D model is covered in this work. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/a-36-apache-vs-sb2c-helldiver.56331/ There are a number of other more recent threads on the ww2.aircraft website where Bill has weighed in to provide the historical facts and timeline on the debate around the name officially applied to the A-36 being Mustang rather than Apache. In his research for this book (and as part of his research for the follow on book covering the later models of the Mustang from P-51D onwards through to the Twin Mustang) via Lowell's connections within Boeing and into other institutions, they were able to get access to and find many original documents that had not previously been accessed by other researchers. I add these to the discussion and consideration of this matter. I would support the interim solution of at least getting the Apache name removed from the primary title for the Wiki and covering the name issue in the body of the article. In relation to the Marshall/Ford book being a secondary citeable source, section dealing with A-36 and name in PP125-128 that source, and earlier post quoted 2021 published book by Matt Willis, section of name issue on PP220-221. 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

268SqdnRAFHistorian I’m afraid your rants do nothing to help fix the problem. Your above comments are original research, which is not usable in an article. Additionally, one of your sources is a forum, which fails WP:RS. In order for the article to cover the naming controversy (not that I think there is enough opposition to the name “Apache” to call it a controversy), it must have significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Official documents are primary sources, so they do not count.

I will also say that you seem to be going out of your way to get “Apache” disassociated from the A-36. The fact is that the name has been associated with the aircraft for so long that it has become accepted as its semi-official name, regardless of its original status. And finally, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA you obviously have never undertaken serious original historic research utilising primary source materials with all the rigours that are associated with it if you consider my previous posts "rants", rather than the setting out of historic facts in a way most academics would recognise. I'll add another fact re naming. The American Heritage Museum, part of the Collings Foundation, that operates one of the two currently restored and airworthy North American A-36A aircraft have also removed the 'Apache' name from their online material and information on the aircraft type on their website and in other material that they produce. https://www.americanheritagemuseum.org/aircrafts/north-american-36-apache/ It will probably take a little while for all those "reliable, secondary sources" to catch up with the changes and the facts. 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved.

Everybody agrees. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

North American A-36 Apache → North American A-36 – The Apache name is now known to have been an unofficial name, along with Invader. The article should be named North American A-36 Mustang; see Flying magazine's editor who explained to a reader in 1944 that neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names. "The Mustang is used by the AAF in two versions: the P-51 fighter and the A-36 attack-fighter. Officially, both versions are known only as the Mustang." Since not everybody here is convinced, the name "Mustang" is far less likely to gain traction. Removing "Apache" is a compromise solution. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. We can address adding "Mustang" to the title in a year or two, as we have time to sort out the sources. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Unless we can prove without a doubt that the A-36 was specifically named Mustang, it's probably for the best to remove the name altogether. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There is an official guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) which gives considerable latitude in choosing the name. In this case, where sources apparently agree on the name North American A-36 but give differing versions of the longer name, and the more concise name is unambiguous, it seem common sense to go with the shorter name at the expense of consistency. We should of course have redirects from the longer names but this is unlikely to mollify the purists. Andrewa (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• If someone has access to Benjamin S. Kelsey's book The Dragon's Teeth, there might be an answer to the name of the aircraft. The last time I held a copy in my hands was 2009. Kelsey is the true father of this aircraft, having ordered it into being to save NAA from closing down the P-51 Mustang assembly line and dispersing the employees.[4] I remember his book was full of crab-wise constructions, talking around the main points, but maybe he says something about "Apache" or "Invader" or "Mustang" with regard to the A-36. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Who had authority over officially naming an aircraft? Was it NAA or was it USAAF? From what I understand from the NAA docs shown the A-36 was internally classified as an aircraft of the Mustang family but due to its intended role as Attack bomber a different name may have been chosen for it by USAAF. --Denniss (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The USAAF had authority to assign official names to its aircraft. If no official name was applied (and sometimes even if one was applied), the manufacturer would assign a marketing name to the aircraft. NAA assigned the marketing name "Invader" to the P-51, with the name appearing in many NAA advertisements early in the war. The name didn't stick, however, as the name "Mustang" was assigned by the USAAF, which was inspired by the RAF's usage of the name. It should be noted, however, that while the RAF did call both the P-51 and A-36 "Mustang", that does not necessarily mean that the USAAF assigned the name to both the P-51 and the A-36, since the RAF had no authority to assign official USAAF names. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

To add, pre-WWII, the US military usually only assigned designations, not names. Companies often assigned names to their airplanes, and they are generally accepted as "official" on Wikipedia for civilian aircraft. As WWII progressed, the military realized that names were a good way to obfuscate a military aircraft's role, and began naming aircraft. In most cases, they adopted already existing names, usually the manufacturer's chosen name, like Lightning for the P-38. In cases like the Mustang, they sometimes chose a name assigned by another user, which also turned out to be a great name in the P-51's case. However, the British sometimes assigned "dud" names, like "Martlet". Thankfully, the USN chose to use Grumman's choice, Wildcat, and later the RN used that name also. But sometimes the British continued using their own names, as with the T-6 Texan/Harvard. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Kelsey's book as a reliable source on this. The historical timeline does not support Kelsey's claims in his book and neither does the NAA or USAAF documentation on the matter. See this thread at WW2aircraft.net which sets out the case against Kelsey's involvement - https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/sheep-shite-article-gathering-of-mustangs-an-legends.56754/ The originator of the post is drgondog - Bill Marshall, author of the major work on the development of the Mustang published in 2020 - details given in talk above. See details of book here: https://www.amazon.com/P-51B-Mustang-Americans-Bastard-Stepchild/dp/1472839668/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3JC83F5R9DLDM&dchild=1&keywords=p-51b+mustang%2C+james+william+marshall+%26+lowell+f.+ford&qid=1631274740&sr=8-1 Where this book has gone in terms of using primary documentation from both NAA (now held in Boeing Archives), the USAAF and other archive and private collections and tying together the most detailed story of the Mustang to date, with a particular emphasis on the battles between NAA and Material Command in the USAAF and within the various commands of the USAAF in getting the USAAF interested in the Mustang forms a large part of the narrative. As you will note from the Amazon listing details, Bob Gruenhagen the author of "Mustang - the Story of the P-51 Fighter" which is regarded by many as one of the seminal histories of the Mustang, wrote the foreword for this book and reviewed its contents before publication. Have a look at the customer review comments to get an idea of the depth of information and detail in this book. There is NAA published parts catalogue for the A-36 dated March 1943 (copy held in Boeing Archive) which shows on the cover title of aircraft type as "A-36A Mustang". See post #66 this thread on ww2aircraft.net https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/north-american-a-36-apache.50834/page-4 268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion forums are interesting; certainly I can see they conflict with Bodie's account and with Kelsey's own account. Of course, the forum discussions are not published yet in WP:SECONDARY sources, so what we have available to us on Wikipedia is not Marshall's damning of Kelsey but Bodie's placement of Kelsey at critical junctures. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In his book, Marshall clearly lays out the timelines and the roles of Echols and Kelsey in blocking NAA and the Mustang until they were over ruled by higher ranking officers and touches on the post-war 'retconning' of their involvement in the success of the Mustang in their interviews and memoirs. So it is published in his book, which is a citeable secondary source.268SqdnRAFHistorian (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.