Talk:William W. Momyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:MILHIST Assessment[edit]

Introduction needs work. "General William Wallace Momyer was commander of the U.S. Air Force Tactical Air Command." When? What conflicts did he participate in? Why is he significant or notable? When was he born, and when did he die? All of these things should be in the first sentence or two or three. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive and retired in FL.209.114.214.2 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuskegee Airmen[edit]

No mention of his involvement with the Tuskegee Airmen; obviously a less suitable thing for an inclusion in the official military biography. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Momyer and the 99th Fighter Squadron contains false information. Momyer's 33rd Fighter group gave up half of their replacement aircraft to a new French squadron, the Lafayette Escadrille. The 33rd suffered heavy losses defending the Allied front against a German offensive that eventually led to the US defeat at Kasserine Pass. As a result, the group had to pull back and reform. Momyer did not criticize the 99th for their role in air-to-air combat, he criticized them for their conduct in the ground attack role. SamMcGowan (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) SamMcGowan (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lafayette Escadrille being a World War I air unit, and this article being about World War II...just what in the world are you talking about? If you can't tell the difference between global conflicts, I don't wonder you don't have any source for that garble above.

And the information in the article IS reliably sourced.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is absolutely correct. Two Free French P-40 squadrons were formed in November 1942 with aircraft acquired from the 33rd FG and known collectively as the "Lafayette Escadrille." (The actual unit designation was GC II/5, or "Fighter Group 2 of the 5th Wing", with the designation "Lafayette" because GCII/5 was the unit E/N.124 was a part of in The Great War) In the wiki article you linked, there is a list of pilots, and #38 is Harold Willis, who was on Eisenhower's staff during Torch and suggested that the Sioux Indian head insignia of E/N.124 be used for the new Free French units. If you're interested in more than making uncivil remarks about other editors, check out Mayock's work cited, which was also the basis for Craven and Cate's history of the North African air campaign in Volume II of Army Air Forces in World War II. I not only documented the edits I made cleaning up the article, but linked the source itself, which explains in detail the methodology and sources of the study.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1942 after the French capitulated in North Africa and threw in with the Allies, a new French fighter squadron was formed in North Africa using P-40s that had been sent over to serve as replacements for the 33rd Fighter Group. The new unit was named the Lafayette Escadrille in honor of the World War I squadron. Check Volume II of the official history of the United States Army Air Forces in World War II. As for the 99th FS incident being "coincidental" to the incident when the 33rd was replaced by a Spitfire group - it was not decimated due to enemy action (check the above referenced volume) that incident took place in early 1942 - the 99th didn't enter combat until June. Momyer wrote his report on the 99th in September. In it he praised the squadron for it's military discipline and the men's appearance but was critical of their action in the air, particularly in close air support missions, which was the primary fighter mission in the theater at the time. SamMcGowan (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Momyer's "involvement" with "The Tuskegee Airmen" was only that the 99th Fighter Squadron was attached to his group twice and was under his operational control. The 99th was not under his command, but was under the direct command of IX Air Support Command commander Gen. Edwin House. SamMcGowan (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could the 99th FS be under the operational control of General Momyer and not be subject to his orders? And why would he be tasked to write a report on them if he were unknowledgable? If he knew so little about the 99th, why didn't he plead ignorance when requested to write that report?

All of these questions naturally spring to mind, Sam. How about listing the ISBN and other info on the source you mentioned, so we can use it here? Not only could it affect the biography on General Momyer, but the existence of a World War II "Lafayette Escadrille" would affect that article also.

I must note that quick Dogpile and Google searchs under "Lafayette Escadrille World War II" and "Lafayette Escadrille WWII" do not bring up any results verifying the unit even existed, nor have I ever read about such a unit, so there are grounds for my dubiety.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your search was rather limited and narrow. I found it easily (hint: "French P-40"), and your failing to "ever read about such a unit" is hardly credible rebuttal. The unit was Groupe de Chasse II/5, Lafayette.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by Dorner's hostile tone toward McGowan's comments overall. It's easy to confirm things like the "Lafayette Escadrille" in North Africa, WW II so it seems silly to mock it. For example here's a film clip of American forces presenting P40s to the Free French "Lafayette Escadrille" in Morocco, 1943, as described.

Of course it's important to cite references when claiming the article contains "false information" as McGowan did. So while he does cite Vol II of "The Army Air Forces in World War II", it would be helpful to be more specific. I assume he's referring to the 7 volume series edited by Wesley Frank Craven published in the 1950s, an on-line copy of which is currently available here.

The book, "The Tuskegee Airmen: The Men who Changed a Nation" (Charles E. Francis), currently cited, contains first-person eyewitness accounts and a lengthy quote from Momyer's "performance review" of the 99th, and in that respect is a useful source. It also includes opinions, such as the section from pages 215-216 about being Momyer being "reckless and aggressive" that evidently inspired the paragraph about Momyer "ignoring cautions from superiors." Being a matter of opinion, this seems unfair to me. Francis' book itself cites Craven (Vol II, p 134) but that says nothing about being reckless, it simply acknowledges that the 33d suffered heavy losses.

In my opinion the two highly critical paragraphs on this subject that have been added to Momyer's biography page loom disproportionately over Momyer's distinguished and heroic WW II career. Chipchapin (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, other critical excerpts have been inserted elsewhere in the article which do give an appearance of a "hatchet job" being done on Momyer, whether or not that's the case. Sarcasm to objecting editors doesn't help one's basis. I personally am not a particular admirer of Momyer, but I know a fair shake when I see one. One man's "aggressive and reckless" (Francis) is another man's "illustrious combat record" (Boyne). So you have to question the agenda underlying the choice of words. Disparaging characterizations have no place in an encyclopedia biography without a LARGE consensus of sources. I have attempted to balance the reporting by editing out loaded words such as "overwhelming" here and there and leaving the core of the facts, but the claim about Doolittle seems at first take a bit overwrought. Commanding Generals of air forces do not give tactical advice to subordinate commanders that is ignored. IAC, I will delve further into this as time and sources permit for possible future clarifications.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made comments and asked questions, based on my own knowledge of aviation history, and requested source(s) for counterclaims so that I might make corrections if called for; this is hostile?

If you will take the trouble to read Tuskegee Airmen, you will discover that Colonel Momyer assigned the 99th Fighter Squadron to close air support missions while assigning his other squadrons to aerial combat. He then wrote the performance review that blamed the 99th for lack of success in air-to-air combat and disparaged their ground attack efforts. They actually won a Distinguished Unit Citation for the very efforts he denigrated.

I have long since returned the source book to the library, so I cannot double-check the matter of opinion versus fact. However, I agree that opinion should, at the very least, be labeled as such.

Incidentally, the paragraph in question in this article is the only one that is reliably cited. This means, by Wikipedia standards, everything else is subject to removal. Imagine the result if someone took WP standards to heart.

Will someone please add source citations for the remainder of the article?

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DUC was not earned for activities while attached to the 33rd FG, but while attached to the 324th FG from 29 June to 19 July 1943, and all of the squadrons of the 324th were awarded the decoration for this period. The Francis book has been taken to task several times by Dr. Daniel Haulman of AFHRA for repeating misconceptions about the Tuskegee Airmen. The link to his most recent paper is in the references for the Momyer article. Take a look, why don't you? The assertion about assigning to ground v. air combat is at best questionable. The higher echelon (XII ASC) assigned and specified types of mission to its groups in daily field orders right down to # of aircraft required. Groups did not go about assigning themselves missions, much less what role they were going to perform. I trust Dr. Haulman's accuracy of research and neutrality of point of view. btw, Francis' book is on-line. Chapter 6 "The Dark Days" and 19 "The Organization of the 477th" are the two relevant chapters. In the first instance a member of the 99th (Spann Watson) anecdotally makes the assertion that Momyer criticized the 99th's lack of air combat victories, which he (Spann Watson) attributes not to being assigned to ground attack instead of air fighting, but "because we didn't go with the invasion force to Italy." (p. 86) Watson mentions "tactical duty" in Sicily as the catalyst for the scurrilous charges, and links the 99th to the 33d, but the 99th was under the operational control of the 324th at that time. In the latter chapter, it is Francis himself making the characterization of Momyer acting "recklessly and aggressively", but the source he footnotes is "Craven" (Craven and Cate) listing only a page number but not the volume, of which there are three or four (his References attribute "Volumes I, II, II, IV" and refers to Cate as "Gates") that Francis states he used. imo the work is at best of dubious credibility to stand alone as a source for any definitive statement, and at worst polemic agenda-driven junk. The text of the wiki article that caused all of this flap was taken virtually word-for-word from Francis's book, but omitted the phrase "to group commanders", implying that Momyer was personally admonished by Doolittle and Craig and disregarded the warning. Such was not the case.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guard of Honor[edit]

Just read his obit in NYT. Has anybody ever speculated that he was basis for the character "Bus" Beal in Pulitzer Prize winning noble Guard of Honor by James Gould Cozzens. His war time career is very similar.

Peter Reilly (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting thought. Momyer was much younger and his and Beal's personalities are starkly different (Momyer had much more in common in age and attitudes with Benny Carricker) but the plot of GoH does have many similarities.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a tiny 2 1/2 year lapse[edit]

some of my questions finally get answered. Some of my Talk page entries also. Which is like backtalk to a time capsule.

The article has even developed some citations besides mine. All to the good. And there has been some real quality effort put into it by Mr. Malloy (who may not have realized he was shouting down the rain barrel 30 months into the past when he addressed me above).

The bad faith term "hatchet job" was uttered above. It seems to refer to the fact I was the first to notice that the Tuskegee Airmen were not even linked to, or mentioned in, this biography, back in 2011. I then committed the double sin of not only inserting the 99th Fighter Squadron into the article, but actually listing a source–the very first inserted into virginal text.

The opposite of "hatchet job" is "hagiography". And a hagiography that read like a "he walks on water" performance review is exactly what I edited two and a half years ago. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the bio, at that point, was pretty much lifted from U. S. Air Force common domain uncopyrighted materials.

Thank heavens (and Reed Malloy) this is no longer true.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Please also note, however, that I did not state it was a hatchet job, but might give the appearance of one, given the points I specified.Obviously perceptions are key here, but I was not the only one to have that perception. For any offense I may have given, I apologize, but my perception of the Francis book as a source is unchanged. The shame of it is, the 99th FS has a proud unit history, but to elevate them to demi-gods for the sake of political correctness while cherry-picking facts to villainize someone with an otherwise distinguished record, as Francis did, does their real accomplishments dishonor.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional investigation[edit]

This article on Momyer refers to a congressional investigation that supposedly occurred in the aftermath of a report he prepared on the 99th Fighter Squadron. I have seen no evidence that there actually was such an investigation. Sometimes books or films/documentaries make a fleeting reference to a congressional investigation. Sometimes the Senate is referenced. Sometimes the House. In the Wikipedia account it suggests it was done by the House Armed Services Committee. At the time of the Momyer report, there was no such House committee by THAT name. That has been the name of the committee in the post-WWII era. If one does an exhaustive computerized search of available resources at the Library of Congress, one will not find any evidence of a congressional investigation. This reference in the Momyer article should be deleted, in my opinion, because it can not be supported by the available evidence. One would think, for example, that Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. would have mentioned it if it had indeed occurred. One would think that any number of the influential newspapers making up the Afro-American press would have had a news account about the congressional hearings, before, during or afterward, providing a detailed account. Check for yourselves. There was NO congressional investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzienDozynki74 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Rewrote the paragraph to reflect facts in the neutral sources. Any future reference to a "congressional investigation" will have to be documented by a verifiable source to remain. That statement was one of the last remaining edits of the earlier negative edits regarding Momyer's role in the controversy. The sources those statements arose from were themselves not properly sourced in that either the assertions themselves were not footnoted per se (as in this case) or often had errors in what documentation was provided.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the the third paragraph of the Momyer entry. There continues to be a fleeting reference to a "congressional investigation." You may wish to delete that as well.

Don't know how I missed that one. A case of hiding in plain sight, I guess. I've changed it too.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William W. Momyer. 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:

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) 00:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_W._Momyer&oldid=1209132475"