text:
Talk:List of jet aircraft of World War II

Start
The scope of this list should probably be stated. It seems to be any jet aircraft designed during World War II whether they flew during the war, after the war, or not at all. In which case, it will eventually consist mostly of various German "paper projects" --Rlandmann 21:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I created this list because like many technology developments including the jet engine, telephone, TV, and computers, the national of the country that is credited with the first is often in the nation where the school system is based. A list like this allows people to see that these developments were happening near simultaneously in a number of countries. In the case of this particular invention it helps to deflate claims that if only the Germans had got their wonder weapons deployed in sufficient numbers, they would have been able to alter the course of the war. The truth is that the allies were only months behind and like with tank production, they could have outproduced the Germans in jet aircraft to make up for any qualitative diffrence.

I think to be an "jet aircraft" it must have a physical existence before VJ day. But perhaps there could be a section under each nation for paper projects. That does not mean that paper projects have to be in the "Category:World War II country jet aircraft" Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japan
I removed these entries because they are about Rocket not Jet aircraft.

also as it was not a jet aircraft. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mitsubishi J8M1 "Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi J8M2 "Shusui" Model 21 Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi J8M3 "Shusui" Model 22 Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi Ki-200"Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
 * Rikugun Kokukosho/Mitsubishi Ki-202"Shusui-kai" Rocket Intercepter
 * Mizuno "Shinryu" Type 1 Suicide Attack Rocket plane Glider
 * Mizuno "Sinryu" Type 2 Rocket plane Intercepter
 * Kyushu J7W2 "Shinden-kai" Intercepter

The list of U.S. jets needs correction; the XP-59/P-59 were -59As: the P-59 was a cancelled prop type. --squadfifteen

I'd say there should be a "paper projects" category, too. And I'd include the J7W, because it was intended to be fitted with an Ne20. --squadfifteen

CC-2
Did the CC-2 actually have a turbojet? I seem to recall it was a piston ducted fan --squadfifteen

CC.2 had a thermojet, which used the ducted fan as the compressor for a relatively primitive jet engine. The Dark 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

V-1
I del V1 Flying Bomb as a pilotless bomb, not an aircraft in the usual sense.

Replaced with Selbstopfer, the piloted version of the V-1. (Note: I did not do the original deletion) The Dark 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This needs consistency. If the pilotless V1 does not count as jet aircraft, the Gloster Meteor should not be referred to as "first jet-to-jet kill". I furter don't understand why the Reichenberg (and Yokosuka MXY7 Model 22) are not in green. They were operational but didn't see combat, just like P80 and Ryan FR. Sansmalrst (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither the Reichenberg nor the Yokosuka were ever used operationally. They were built, and then not used. Unless you have a source that suggests they were actually assigned to an operational unit, then it is correct as it stands. As for first "jet-to-jet kill" - Nationalism aside, the V-1 was powered by a jet engine, and as a machine capable of flight, is an aircraft by definition.NiD.29 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree that the V-1 is a jet-engine powered aircraft and should be in this list. The V-1 is included in the Wikipedia article on "jet aircraft", and Wikipedia should be consistent in itself. This issue could simply be solved by renaming the list to "List of _manned_ jet aircraft of World War II".
 * Regarding "operational": The information in the article itself is inconsistent, no new references needed. The article defines the green-highlighted items as "operational during the war". The article itself further states that the Yokosuka was "deployed but not used" and that the Reichenberg was "ready for operations [but] not used".
 * There is a larger point here that this article is wildly non-NPOV, but I'll make that point in a separate post. Sansmalrst (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Please elaborate on the NPOV - all of the original NPOV material is gone. It is nothing more than a list of those aircraft actually built.NiD.29 03:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Types
I added the Northrop XF-79; I'd also add the DH.108 (sometimes called Swallow), built to E/45, if I knew when development began. I'm inclined to add the Yak & MiG projects based on captured German work, too, because they were (arguably) begun before war's end (if not by the Soviets). Trekphiler 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Germany
The Me163 isn't a jet... it's a rocket. Dunno why that was left in here.

--Evil.Merlin 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Aircraft
I removed the Me163 again today. Please remember that this is for jet aircraft only, not rockets. The Dark 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * A rocket aircraft is a jet aircraft by definition as it is propelled by jet propulsion. See e.g. wikipedia article on "jet aircraft" ('Most people use the term 'jet aircraft' to denote gas turbine based airbreathing jet engines, but rockets and scramjets are both also propelled by jet propulsion.'), see also "jet engine" and "jet propulsion".
 * So... I have the impression that adding Me 163, Ba 349 etc. back in would be hugely contentious? Maybe the article should be renamed to "List of air-breathing jet aircraft of World War II"... Sansmalrst (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The scientific definition regarding the narrowest possible understanding of their means of motivation is irrelevant as a jet engine and a rocket motor are commonly understood to be different technologies when dealing with aviation terminology. Rockets carry their own oxidizer and expel that along with the fuel it burns. A jet engine on the other hand takes its oxygen from the surrounding air which it mixes with fuel.
 * A better idea would be to look at List of rocket aircraft which is linked from this page already - the focus of this page is necessary to exclude modern jets so as to focus on just the earliest jets (VJ day being a convenient cutoff - most other possible cutoffs require WP:OR or are wildly contentious) - adding the rockets from this time period by necessity also adds a lot of aircraft that used rockets for takeoff (their short running time has largely limited rockets to being temporary speed boosters), however as there isn't likely a complete list of such types a lot of OR is likely to occur - when an aircraft was first trialled or cleared for rockets is not easy to find, even for US types, and worse for Russian or German rocket assisted aircraft. (ps - please sign your talk page posts with four tildas at the end.)NiD.29 04:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but no:
 * WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a reflection on (unreferenced and hence unsupported) common understanding. Consider that anywhere else on WP rocket propulsion is considered to be a form of jet propulsion (see entry 'rocket engine', 'jet engine', 'jet aircraft', 'rocket aircraft', 'jet assisted take off' etc.). Do you have a supporting reference for the claim that rocket engines are not commonly understood to be jet engines?
 * To be clear, I absolutely understand the conceptual difference between rocket engines and air-breathing jet engines. I even agree that the two could be separated. But then, this list here should be named "air-breathing jet aircraft of WW2" for precision.
 * Nonetheless, the arbitrary exclusion of rocket engines is exactly why the article violates WP:NPOV. Consider that Ryan FR, MiG I-250, Su-5 and XBDT-2 are classified as jets here because of a "narrow understanding as to their means of motivation", to use your words. It is a technicality and common people would not classify these aircraft as jets due to the propeller on the nose. Hence, this list uses an arbitrary definition of "jet" that excludes rocket engines and includes thermo-jets and mixed propulsion, precisely in order to shape the outcome (you write so yourself) and not because it is in any way a useful or common selection. And that is WP:NPOV. Just to reflect: is there any source that supports this choice?
 * This list already violates WP:OR. What should have been done is to use existing and available sources for a classification of "jet aircraft" and "aircraft of ww2". What has been done instead is to come up with new and arbitrary definitions for both - this is interesting and fun, but it also constitutes original research and thus violates WP:OR. You yourself write that the cutoff dates etc. are contentious, yet no supporting reference for the choice is given.
 * The WP:OR issue can be very nicely illustrated by your own example of a definition of rocket-powered aircraft. There is a very clear conceptual difference between rocket-powered aircraft and one that uses rockets as boost or take-off assistance (RATO). Generally speaking, you can strap a rocket to pretty much any airframe. That doesn't make it a rocket aircraft any more than sitting in a cockpit makes me a pilot. E.g. nobody would classify the Me 323 as rocket aircraft although RATO was available. Similarly, there is a clear conceptual difference between a (piston-engine powered) testbed for jet engines, and an actual jet aircraft. This distinction - what a jet aircraft is, what a rocket aircraft is, what aircraft should be considered as a WWII aircraft etc. - is research. It should be left to experts and professionals and obtained through references, and not be decided as part of an article, as was done here. This is what WP:OR is about.
 * Sorry for failing to sign earlier. Writing this was fun, no offense intended. All I am saying really is just that this list has serious issues. Please also consider what I wrote in "Focus" further down regarding exclusion of the XB-43 and SO.6000. Great aircraft, but not WW2. Sansmalrst (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * 1. Not relevant - we are talking about aviation, which makes the distinction, not physics, which only discusses forces at their most general. On the jet engine page "In common parlance" limits it to the definition primarily used here.
 * 2. Excessively wordy - we don't need that much precision as the literature already supports the current name and no-one would be able to find the page without redirects. List of jet and rocket aircraft of World War II works better but I am not convinced adding rockets is the right thing to do.
 * 3. How is the exclusion of rocket engines arbitrary and NPOV? Every single list of Wikipedia has boundaries, and rockets and jets are two different technologies to power an aircraft, just as piston engines are a third category, and gliders a forth. There is an entire list devoted to rocket aircraft. This is part of (hopefully) a series of pages to cover jet aircraft, and is limited for both a WW-2 focus (to fit in with other pages on WW2), and to keep it manageable. A full list of jet aircraft would be very large and would need to be broken up. Inclusion isn't arbitrary, and indeed if you check the references on each type, they back up that 1. they were powered by an engine that was described as a jet engine, and 2. that construction or use occurred during WW.2, so no OR required. I tried to find references specific for each type to justify inclusion, and there are other references that provide most of the list but they tend to be somewhat generic and thus lacking in details such as dates and numbers built - check the further reading if you'd like.
 * 4. The WW-2 date is the only possible choice that isn't contentious largely because it is the cutoff used by a lot of books, and other WP pages follow. If one were to follow the Fighters page, they go by generations, but that generates no end of argument between the fanbois trying to reclassify their pet airplanes, and without a reference in sight to justify any of it. Other dates might work but would neither fit, and would require more justification for such a date.
 * 5. I was merely illustrating the difficulty in applying an overly broad definition for "jet". Those included on the page now are described regularly in books as being jets. Personally I don't see much difference between the thrust produced by a turbocharged engine (particularly at altitude, especially when they sometimes burn fuel in the exhaust) and a Motorjet but am following the literature in including the latter but not the former.
 * No worries, missing types can be added. XB-43 development began in 1944 (hence its inclusion), and the Sud-Ouest SO.6000 Triton began development during the war and both flew (unlike the excluded projects) - not sure if metal was cut during the war - the SO.6000 is unlikely while the XB-43 is probable - however I don't have type specific references for those, other than online sources so I cannot be sure and have no argument about removing at least the Triton pending references. Other types that flew post war but were developed during the war and are missing could be added instead - there is a possibility some of the Argentine designs began during WW-2, the Canberra's development also began in 1944, although the configuration used dates to late 1945. Excluding them also excludes the Henschel Hs 132 and Messerschmitt P.1101 though as they never flew, however their absence is likely to generate more controversy than the inclusion of the XB-43. The exclusion of many German projects has to do with the fact they never made it to metal, and we don't have as much information on similar British and American paper projects for balance, even with recent books on that topic.NiD.29 22:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * (I originally wrote a longer comment here, but it appears to me that I should separate some things out, so I redacted it somewhat.)
 * Well, look at how "jet", "turbine" and "piston engine" are conceptually related:
 * "Jet propulsion" is a principle, not a technology. During jet propulsion, hot expanding gas pushes the plane forward. This is different from propeller propulsion, where air is pushed backwards and the reactionary force propels the plane forward. But these are principles, not technologies. The respective technologies are jet engines and airscrews/propellers.
 * Different technologies exist to generate hot expanding gas.
 * A rocket combusts at least two fuels, one of them being the oxidizer. You have already described how that works, I believe. Because rocket technology propels the aircraft through hot, expanding gas, it is a jet engine. This is not my opinion. All of WP treats it that way.
 * Alternatively, you can combust fuel and use air as oxidizer. But you need to compress the air first. You can do this with different technologies: with a piston-engine-powered compressor (motorjet), or a turbine-powered compressor (turbojet). Note: a jet engine can be a turbine or a piston engine. (In fact, ramjets and pulsejets rely on the speed of the airplane to compress the air.)
 * The airscrew, on the other hand, must somehow be turned by a rotary machine. Just like with jet engines, this can be a piston-engine, a super- or turbocharged piston engine, or a turbine (turboprop). Such engines are never jet engines because the main propulsion comes from the movement of the airscrew, although some thrust might come from the exhaust.
 * What I want to drive home is that rocket engines and turbojet engines are different technologies, but they are both jet engines. Likewise, piston engines can power jet engines in the form of a motorjet.
 * Today, there are almost no rocket-powered or motorjet-powered aircraft. So most aircraft are either clearly propeller-driven, or turbojets. I guess that is why people ("common parlance") often use "jet engine" to mean "turbojet engine". Nonetheless a rocket engine is a jet engine, just like the engines slung under the wings of our holiday planes.
 * Ok... that was technical... but it's not the exclusion of rockets as such that violates WP:NPOV, it's the bias used in assembling the list:
 * You say the article lists jet aircraft based on a common parlance understanding as given in the article jet engine. I'd prefer a technical definition, but ok, I can see the rationale. The many rocket-powered aircraft of that era are visually clearly distinct from what people would call a "jet aircraft"; further, the number of rocket-powered experimental aircraft might overpower the list.
 * But then, the article makes a 180-degree turn by including mixed-power motorjet aircraft - apparently because technically, they are jet-powered. However, since they are not turbine-powered, they don't meet the common parlance criteria for jets either, nor would they be commonly identified as jets due to the propeller. So they shouldn't be in the list, but are. This suggests to me that the common parlance criterium is reduced to "air-breathing", omitting the "turbine-powered".
 * Such selective criteria lead to the hilarious inclusion of Su-5 and MiG I-250 in this list. Both look nothing like jets, endure 3 (Su-5) or 10 (MiG I-250) minutes under jet power, were built 13 times altogether and first flew within two months of war's end. One really has to stretch definitions of both "jet aircraft" and "aircraft of WW2" to include them. On the other hand, the Me 163, certainly looking nothing like a conventional aircraft, endurance of 6-8 minutes, 370 planes built and, most of all, used in combat, ticks all the boxes. But it is excluded because of some qualitative argument that here unlike everywhere else in WP, "jet engine" means "turbojet engine".
 * Do you see how this is warped?
 * Now, on to the VJ day criterium. On the face of it, that makes sense. WW2 stopped on 15 August 1945, and if we consider the Hs 132 and Me P.1101 as WW2 jet aircraft although they were not completed, then why not stipulate that anything under construction in a wider sense ("metal was cut") at VJ day is a WW2 airplane.
 * However, considering that jet aircraft had no influence whatsoever in the Pacific theatre, the only difference between VE and VJ day as cutoff is really that it adds construction starts and first prototype flights for Allied planes, none of which were built to see service in WW2. There is a good chance that in the end, this list will be mostly populated by aircraft with a first flight after VJ day, candidates being Yak-15, Su-9, B-45, XB-46, XB-48, EF-131, Gloster E.1/44, and so on. All allied planes which had nothing to do with WW2, if you think about it, but had prototype production start before a certain date. Although the Allies had three more months to field more aircraft, they didn't. The P80 never flew sorties in the Pacific and only was in Italy for a few months before the war without flying sorties, and the Ryan FR was somehow on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific without flying sorties - I mean, the type was later declared unfit for aircraft carriers. Yet this list lists both as operational, but omits the operational Me 163 and V-1 completely (more on that in a minute).
 * Have I made clear now how in this article, hard technical arguments are set up to include the most possible number of Allied aircraft in this list, yet qualitative arguments are invoked to exclude Axis aircraft?
 * If you are still not convinced, let me try one last time:
 * The V-1 flying bomb looks like and is an air-breathing jet aircraft. Thousands were operational and used. But it is excluded from this list because it is unmanned. Somehow, that makes it not an aircraft - but the V-1 is still a fully qualified "jet" when it comes to crediting the Gloster Meteor with the first jet-to-jet kill. I don't mean to strip the Meteor of its merits, but how being unmanned can cost the V-1 its aircraft status but still constitute an air-to-air victory leaves me speechless. If anything, it should be the other way round: An unmanned aircraft should still be an aircraft - in fact because there is no pilot on board, trimming and keeping course pose additional challenges. On the other hand, unmanned aircraft can't dodge, dogfight, retreat, dive, etc., so shooting own a V-1 should not be considered more of an air victory than shooting down a tugged target. Sansmalrst (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The V-1 flying bomb looks like and is an air-breathing jet aircraft. Thousands were operational and used. But it is excluded from this list because it is unmanned. Somehow, that makes it not an aircraft - but the V-1 is still a fully qualified "jet" when it comes to crediting the Gloster Meteor with the first jet-to-jet kill. I don't mean to strip the Meteor of its merits, but how being unmanned can cost the V-1 its aircraft status but still constitute an air-to-air victory leaves me speechless. If anything, it should be the other way round: An unmanned aircraft should still be an aircraft - in fact because there is no pilot on board, trimming and keeping course pose additional challenges. On the other hand, unmanned aircraft can't dodge, dogfight, retreat, dive, etc., so shooting own a V-1 should not be considered more of an air victory than shooting down a tugged target. Sansmalrst (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List order
Shouldn't the list of countries be in some sort of order? Maybe alphabetical? IJB TA 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to split it among Allies/Axis, and then alphabetically, but that does sound like a good idea. The Dark 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave the list as known to have flown.
Since most of the planes listed never flown, I think they should be removed.

The list should be inclusive/exclusive of jet powered planes that flew during WW2. Not after --Evil.Merlin 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Aircraft that were intended for use during the war (Ta 183, Hs 132, various Japanese projects) should be included. Just becuase it didn't fly doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm still in total disagreement. the Germans had literally dozens of jet aircraft in the planing and prototype stages in the last part of World War 2. Just Messerschmitt alone had nearly a dozen jet aircraft in the works at the end of the war. If this is the case, we need to get the Ryan Fireball and several other jets that both the Americans and British were working on on the list. We really should just limit it to operational and advanced prototype stages else it may grow a little out of control. --Evil.Merlin 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that the horde of "napkinwaffe" designs don't need to be mentioned; however those for which metal was cut do. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * And revisiting this again (ftw, I'm formerly Aerobird), the cancelled/incomplete types should not be included, and also types that flew after the end of the war should be excluded as well (and I've boldly made it so). Otherwise, the article will quickly collect the usual Luftwaffe-über-Allies "if they'd only had six more months!" cruft. (As a note, most of the napkinwaffe would never had flown, as the engines for them simply didn't work...) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian Jets
The Yak-15's development didn't start till after VE Day, but was in the design stages during the fight against Japan. The MiG-9's development started in 1945 as well. The MiG I-250 was developed in December of 1944 with first flights in early March.

Adding all three to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil Merlin (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

 * I'm going to add the Su-5 as well. First flight was 6 April 1945, but design started around the same (and was similar to) the I-250. The Dark 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Good catch, forgot all about the Su-5! --Evil.Merlin 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I had forgotten the Russians entirely! I remembered their rocket plane, but not the thermojets until I saw the I-250 on the list. The Dark 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

please fix
entered service as a kamikaze aircraft or suicide missile. Jet version built, but went not operational.

the last part should be something like

but never became operational. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. :) I might adopt this page as a project, it needs a lot of work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Link redirects etc
There are several reasons links to redirects are better than inline redirected links - (if you wish to discuss this further we can take it to a user:talk page or to WT:AVIATION or WT:AIR cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) if/when the particular variant is split to a new page (not unlikely given the number of pages I have seen that lump a whole bunch of barely related aircraft together and that need to be split to their own pages), it is easier to find and correct than having to hunt through a great many links that all point direct at the main page but with local changes to the text.
 * 2) if the visible text, as on listboxes is meaningless (such as with model numbers), it makes no sense to make the link direct to the parent page unless it applied to all types included on that page, as it is then impossible to tell what aircraft the link is about.
 * 3) the page ends up being larger than necessary, although that is more an issue on longer lists than here (at least for now).
 * 4) it makes lists more difficult to scan quickly when reading the markup.

Focus
As the 80% complete Horten Ho 229 was already included, I have expanded the list to include any aircraft that reached a significant degree of development during the war (ie something resembling an aircraft existed before VE/VJ day even if it never flew.) Paper projects and napkinwaffe are still verboten as the vast majority were unworkable and could never have flown. Alkso thinking about making it one table so they can be more closely compared.NiD.29 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I am wondering if engine testbeds should be included - so far I am aware of Gotha Go 145A, Heinkel He 118, Vickers Wellington and Avro Lancaster all being used as engine testbeds, though I am sure there are others that were used during the war.NiD.29 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Ju 88, He 111 and Do 17, among others, were also used as engine testbeds. But I think including those would be misleading. Sansmalrst (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I suggest that there are two serious issues with this article:
 * First, it was written to show that (quoting the first author) "these developments were happening near simultaneously in a number of countries" and to "deflate claims that if only the Germans had got their wonder weapons deployed in sufficient numbers, they would have been able to alter the course of the war." While I don't disagree with the agenda itself (German end-war paper projects are overstated and the Allies were catching up in jet engine technology), this violates WP:NPOV. In particular, I wonder whether the operationalisation of "jet aircraft of WWII" follows an agenda:
 * A few allied designs never flying anywhere near to VE or VJ day, nor ever intended for WWII, are included, e.g. the XB-43 and Sud-Oueste Triton. Looks a bit like a desperate effort to compensate for Ar 234 and get France in. Yet Axis planes at similar construction stages at VE day are excluded, e.g. He 343. To put this into perspective: the main achievement of jet aircraft was the engine, not the airframe. That's why pretty much all planes listed here were finished before engines were available. The XB-43 used the GE J35, which did not run until 1946. The Sud-Oueste Triton flew first with a German Jumo 004. Scnr: Is this the way in which the article intends to show that Allied jet development was almost on par? ;)
 * Although rocket propulsion is jet propulsion, pure rocket-propelled and operational aircraft are excluded for no particular reason. As is the unmanned V-1. Yet mixed-power aircraft (propeller-powered (thermo)jet-assisted) such as Su-5, MiG I-250, Ryan FR and XBTD-2 are included.
 * Second, a list of WW2 jet aircraft could be arrived at though sources, e.g. Jim Winchester ("Aircraft of WW2", Amber books, 2012) or Kenneth Munson ("Aircraft of WW2", Doubleday, 1972), but because the article tries to make a point, it synthesises. It should be considered whether this violates WP:OR.

Sansmalrst (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Original Research ?
This article is original research. Just to be sure we are on the same page what that means: of course WP allows us to "research" a subject by reading up on it before we write about it. But what we are not supposed to do is conduct our own analysis, come to our own conclusions, and synthesise (WP:OR). This article does all three. To illustrate my point, let's assume we wanted to compile a list of "rocket-propelled aircraft of ww2" (I'm not really proposing to do that - it's just an example). Generally speaking, we can do this in two ways: It might be less fun, and more boring, but WP:OR actually means that we must follow the second approach. On one hand, that's sad because we lose control. Maybe we both think the Ju 248 should be in the list, but both Winchester and Munson didn't include it. In that case, tough luck. On the other hand, discussions with fanboys are cut short because they can either find a reference for their claim, or the discussion is over.
 * 1) Either we create the list ourselves by browsing Wikipedia etc. and defining our own interpretation of "rocket aircraft" and "aircraft of WW2". We might find different opinions what constitutes a "rocket aircraft". Maybe one person would argue that only those qualify where rocket propulsion is the primary motivating force, including e.g. the He 112. Maybe another person would argue that rocket aircraft have specifically been designed for a rocket engine, which excludes the He 112. Yet another person might argue that RATO-capability also makes rocket aircraft. Similarly, different opinions are possible when an aircraft belongs to WW2. One person might say, if it flew before VJ day, which includes the Ba 349. Another person might say, if it was operational before VJ day, which excludes the Ba 249. A third person might say, if metal was cut and the aircraft was built in the context of WW2, which includes the Ju 248. It is very difficult to argue which one of these distinctions is best, and as you say yourself, it would be tedious to deal with the fanbois who want to make their point.
 * 2) Alternatively, we can rely on other people's research on this matter. For example, we could get books by Jim Winchester ("Aircraft of WW2", Amber books, 2012) and Kenneth Munson ("Aircraft of WW2", Doubleday, 1972) from a library and see what rocket aircraft they list. Maybe they don't list the Ju 248. These are published authors on the subject of WW2 aircraft, so they probably know more about historical classification than we do (certainly more than I do).

Now you might say that here we are only creating a list. And if we listed something trivial, e.g. "aircraft where metal is cut before VJ day", then I would agree that it's ok to compile the list ourselves. But what is needed here is much more complicated - a criterium what aircraft are "WW2 aircraft" and what aren't. It's easy to decide for operational airplanes, but what about the others? There is no rule to say the criterium has to be framed by date and construction status. For example, the argument could be made that the McDonnell FD Phantom, although it flew before VE day, is not a WW2 airplane because it was always intended for postwar use, whereas the Hs 132 is a WW2 plane although it was not even completed when the war ended. If you think that's a convoluted argument, would you call the F-16 a Vietnam war airplane because the prototype flew before that war ended, but never took part in it?

I guess my point is that this article tries to reinvent the wheel when it could and should rely on existing publications and the expertise of experts (not me). The question what WW2 aircraft are have been answered by others, e.g. the authors mentioned above. I haven't critically analysed it, but I think we will find that historians and aviation experts use the term "ww2 aircraft" if a conceptual relation to the war exists, which is certainly satisfied by, but not exclusive to, operational use. And yes, that probably means that many German desperation/emergency programs that did not even fly are considered WW2 planes, some allied planes that might even have flown before VE day aren't. That is because the German planes were made for WW2, whereas some US planes really were already built for the next war. This is also why the Sud-Oueste Triton is by no stretch of the imagination a WW2 plane. Maybe it was planned before VE day and maybe even metal was cut. But every pore of this remarkable plane shouts "post-war". "Let's plan in secret so we can rebuild French aviation industry once the Germans are defeated." This is not the definition of a WW2-plane, but of a post-war plane. (I believe the plane is off the list now... I'm merely bringing this up again to make a point.) On the other hand, the Ta 183 might not even have been built, but it was intended for WW2, so it was more of a a WW2 plane than the Sud-Ouest 6000. (Again, I'm not trying to get it on this list... just trying to make a point.) Sansmalrst (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Split the list? (Air-breathing and rocket)
As mentioned many times above, rockets are a type of jet engine when definitions are strictly applied, but rockets and jets are usually thought of as seperate. This is causing inconsistency. For example the MXY-7 Ohka is included, but the Me 163 Komet is not.

I therefore propose a compromise: Split the list. Instead of there simply being an "Aircraft" section, there would be seperate sections for air-breathing jet aircraft, and rocket-powered or non-air-breathing jet aircraft, and probably a bit of text at the top explaining why they are seperate.

Any objections? SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 * That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. I'd probably to suggest splitting into three lists: jets, rockets, and mixed propulsion.
 * 87.115.150.37 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the (Very) delayed response
 * I agree. I'm not aware of any mixed jet/rocket planes, so I assume mixed reffers to mixed prop/jet. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been over a year and I have no objections, so I'm doing this. I have a long train journey tomorrow anyway.
 * If this gets reverted, I am escalating this to the dispute resolution noticeboards. This argument has been going on-and-off for 17 years.

 * Edit: OK this has taken significantly longer than expected, but I'm working on it!

 * Edit 2: And I no longer have free time. S\*\*\*. I'll work on this when I get some back, but don't hold your breath. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


text:
User:PittBill

My homepage

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:PittBill


text:
User talk:PittBill

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:PittBill


text:
Operation Winter Storm

Operation Winter Storm (Unternehmen Wintergewitter), a German offensive in December 1942 during World War II, involved the German 4th Panzer Army failing to break the Soviet encirclement of the German 6th Army during the Battle of Stalingrad.

In late November 1942 the Red Army had completed Operation Uranus, encircling some 300,000 Axis personnel in and around the city of Stalingrad. German forces within the Stalingrad pocket and directly outside were reorganized (22 November 1942) into Army Group Don and placed under the command of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein. The Red Army continued to allocate as many resources as possible to the planned Operation Saturn to isolate Army Group A from the rest of the German Army. To remedy the situation, the Luftwaffe attempted to supply German forces in Stalingrad through an air bridge. When the Luftwaffe failed and it became obvious that a breakout could succeed only if launched as early as possible, Manstein decided on a relief effort.

Originally, Manstein was promised four panzer divisions. Due to German reluctance to weaken certain sectors by redeploying German units, the task of opening a corridor to the encircled German 6th Army fell to the 4th Panzer Army. The German force was pitted against several Soviet armies tasked with the destruction of the encircled German forces and their offensive around the lower Chir River.

The German offensive caught the Red Army by surprise and made large gains on the first day. The spearhead forces enjoyed air support and defeated counterattacks by Soviet troops. By 13 December, Soviet resistance had slowed the German advance considerably. Although German forces took the area surrounding Verkhne-Kumskiy, the Red Army launched Operation Little Saturn on 16 December and crushed the Italian 8th Army on Army Group Don's left flank, threatening the survival of Manstein's force. Faced with mounting casualties and stiff Soviet opposition, the 4th Panzer Army continued its attempt to open a corridor to the 6th Army on 18–19 December, but was unsuccessful. Manstein called off the assault on 23 December and by Christmas Eve the 4th Panzer Army began to withdraw to its starting position. Due to the failure of the 6th Army to break out from the Soviet encirclement, the Red Army could continue the "strangulation" of German forces in Stalingrad.

Background
On 23 November 1942, the Red Army closed its encirclement of Axis forces in Stalingrad. Nearly 300,000 German and Romanian soldiers were trapped in the city and vicinity of Stalingrad by roughly 1.1 million Soviet personnel. Adolf Hitler appointed Field Marshal Erich von Manstein as commander of a new Army Group Don. Composed of the German 4th Panzer and 6th Armies, as well as the Third and Fourth Romanian Armies, Manstein's new army group was between German Army Groups A and B. Instead of attempting an immediate breakout, German high command decided that the trapped forces would remain in Stalingrad and hold out. The encircled German forces were to be supplied by air, requiring roughly 680 t of supplies per day. The fleet of 500 Luftwaffe transport aircraft was insufficient for the task. Many of the aircraft were hardly serviceable in the rough Soviet winter; in early December, more German cargo planes were destroyed in accidents than by Soviet fighter aircraft. The 6th Army received less than 20 percent of its daily needs. Furthermore, the Germans were still threatened by Soviet forces which still held portions of the Volga River's west bank in Stalingrad.

Given the unexpected size of German forces closed off in Stalingrad, on 23 November Stavka (Soviet Armed Forces High Command) decided to strengthen the outer encirclement preparing to destroy the trapped Axis forces. On 24 November, several Soviet formations began to dig in against possible German incursions from the west. The Soviets also reinforced the encircling forces in order to prevent a breakout by the 6th Army and other Axis units. This tied down over ½ of the Red Army's strength in the area. Planning for Operation Saturn began on 25 November to destroy the Italian 8th Army and cut communications between German forces west of the Don River and those operating in the Caucasus. Planning also began for Operation Koltso (Ring), which aimed at reducing German forces in the Stalingrad pocket.

As Operation Uranus concluded, German forces inside the encirclement were too weak to attempt a breakout on their own. Half of their remaining armor had been lost during the defensive fighting and there was a severe lack of fuel and ammunition for the surviving vehicles, given that the Luftwaffe was not able to provide adequate aerial supply. Manstein proposed a counterstrike to break the Soviet encirclement of Stalingrad, codenamed Operation Winter Storm (Unternehmen Wintergewitter). On 28 November, Manstein sent Hitler a detailed report on Army Group Don's situation, including the strength of the 6th Army and an assessment of the ammunition for German artillery inside the city.

Stavka postponed Operation Saturn until 16 December, as Soviet forces struggled to clear German defenders from the lower Chir River. The Red Army's offensive in the area commenced on 30 November, involving around 50,000 soldiers, which forced Manstein to use the 48th Panzer Corps to hold the area. The 5th Tank Army was reinforced by the new 5th Shock Army, drawn from existing formations of the South-Western and Stalingrad Fronts; the 5th Tank Army totaled nearly 71,000 men, 252 tanks and 814 guns. The Soviet offensive succeeded in tying down the 48th Panzer Corps, originally chosen to lead one of the main attacks on the Soviet encirclement. The Soviets were forewarned of the impending German assault when they discovered the 6th Panzer Division unloading at the town of Morozovsk and held back several armies from the attack on the lower Chir River to prepare for a possible breakout attempt by German forces inside Stalingrad.

German

The relief operation was originally scheduled to include the LVII Panzer Corps of the 4th Panzer Army, under the command of General Friedrich Kirchner, including the 6th and 23rd Panzer Divisions, and Army Detachment Hollidt, consisting of three infantry divisions and two armored divisions (11th and 22nd Panzer Divisions). In total, it was expected that four Panzer divisions, four infantry divisions and three Luftwaffe Field Divisions were to take part in Operation Winter Storm. They would be tasked with temporarily opening a passage to the 6th Army. The Luftwaffe field divisions—formed of non-combat soldiers, headquarters staffs and unit-less Luftwaffe and Heer personnel—were poorly trained and lacked seasoned officers and enlisted soldiers, as well as sufficient anti-tank and artillery guns. Many of the personnel promised for the relief effort never arrived, partly due to the poor transportation service to the front, while some units originally chosen to be transferred under the command of Army Group Don were retained by their original commands. Other units in Army Group Don were in no shape to conduct offensive operations, due to losses sustained in the past month of combat, while many new formations which had been promised did not arrive on time.

On the other hand, the 11th Panzer Division was one of the most complete German armored divisions on the Eastern Front since it had just been transferred out of the German Army's reserve. The 6th Panzer Division was also complete because it had been transferred to Manstein's control from Western Europe. However, the usefulness of the 11th Panzer Division was compromised when the Soviets launched their offensive against forces in the lower Chir River area, as this tied Army Detachment Hollidt down on the defensive. Because of this, and because Manstein believed that a thrust originating from the position of Army Detachment Hollidt would be too obvious, the German field marshal decided to use the 4th Panzer Army and the LVII Panzer Corps as the main components of the relief operation. However, despite attempts by the Germans to build strength for the offensive, their position along the lower Chir River became tenuous; the Soviet breakthrough was only blunted by the arrival of the 11th Panzer Division, which was able to destroy the bulk of two Soviet tank brigades. Consequently, the XLVIII Panzer Corps became embroiled in the defensive battles for the Chir River, as the Soviets pushed in an attempt to overrun the airfield at Tatsinskaya (being used to resupply German forces in Stalingrad by air).

Although the LVII Panzer Corps was reluctantly released to Army Group Don, by Army Group A, the 17th Panzer Division was ordered back to its original area of concentration, and did not prepare to go back to Army Group Don until 10 days after it had been asked for. In light of the troubles in building up sufficient forces, and seeing that the Soviets were concentrating more mechanization on the Chir River, Manstein decided to launch Operation Winter Storm using the 4th Panzer Army. Manstein hoped that the 6th Army would launch an offensive of its own, from the opposite side, upon the receipt of the code signal Thunderclap. Manstein was gambling on Hitler accepting that the only plausible method to avoid the demise of the 6th Army was allowing it to break out, and assumed that General Paulus would agree to order his forces to escape the Stalingrad pocket. On 10 December, Manstein communicated to Paulus that the relief operation would commence in 24 hours.

Order of Battle of 4. Panzer Armee (Dec 1942 – Jan 1943)
Data from AxisHistory.Com
 * 15. Lw. Feld-Division
 * LVII Panzer Korps
 * 17. Panzer-Division
 * 23. Panzer-Division
 * 5. SS-Panzer-Division "Wiking" (in transit until January)
 * 16. Infanterie-Division (elements)

Order of Battle for the XXXXVIII Panzer Korps (January 1st, 1943)
Data from AxisHistory.Com
 * 6. Panzer-Division
 * 306. Infanterie-Division
 * Gruppe Pfeiffer

Soviet
For the purpose of Operation Uranus, Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov deployed eleven Soviet armies. In an effort to bolster the offensive capabilities of the Stalingrad Front, over 420 tanks, 111,000 soldiers and 556 artillery guns were shipped over the Volga River in a period of three weeks. The Red Army and Red Air Force were able to amass over one million soldiers, 13,500 artillery guns, 890 tanks and 1,100 combat aircraft, organized into 66 rifle divisions, five tank corps, 14 tank brigades, a single mechanized brigade, a cavalry corps, and 127 artillery and mortar regiments. As the encirclement closed and the Soviets continued with secondary operations, the 51st Army was positioned on the edge of the outer encirclement with 34,000 men and 77 tanks. South of them was the 28th Army, with 44,000 soldiers, 40 tanks and 707 artillery guns and mortars. Concurrently, the Red Army began building its strength for Operation Saturn, in which it would aim to isolate and destroy German Army Group A in the Caucasus.

German offensive
On 12 December 1942, the LVII Panzer Corps of the Fourth Panzer Army began its north-eastward drive toward German forces trapped in the Stalingrad pocket. The 6th and 23rd Panzer Divisions made large gains, surprising the Red Army and threatening the rear of the 51st Army. The German drive was due to be spearheaded by the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion of Tiger I tanks but the unit did not embark on its transport to the Eastern Front until 21 December 1942 and did not see battle until early January 1943, along the Manytsch River. At first, Winterstorm made rapid progress. Some units were able to travel up to 60 km on the first day. The Germans were aided by surprise, as Stavka had not expected the German offensive to begin so soon, while General Aleksandr Vasilevsky was unable to detach the 2nd Guards Army and use it as a blocking force against Manstein's spearheads.

The 6th Panzer Division was able to capture Soviet artillery intact. Soviet resistance decreased noticeably after the 6th and 23rd Panzer Divisions had overrun the main body of Russian infantry. The 302nd Rifle Division of the 51st Army was overrun by the end of 12 December. Although Soviet infantry quickly reinforced villages in the path of the German drive, the Red Army's cavalry in the area was exhausted from weeks of combat and was incapable of putting up serious resistance. Despite early gains, the LVII Panzer Corps was unable to achieve decisive results. There were also reports of severe pressure building against the 23rd Panzer Division, despite headway made on the first day of the German offensive.

On 13 December, the 6th Panzer Division made contact with the Soviet 5th Tank Army, which was reducing the German defenses around the Chir River. German forces were able to engage and defeat Soviet armor as the former forced the crossing of the Aksay River. A big armored battle began around the village of Verkhne-Kumskiy. The village was on the most convenient south–north road to Stalingrad, whereas the barren steppe around was riddled with ravines and gullies covered with deep snow, Verkhne-Kumskiy was unavoidable for large armored forces to move north towards the Myshkova River. On the Soviet side, Volsky's 4th Mechanized Corps was also driving at full speed towards the village. The corps had not yet had time to replenish personnel and material after the November offensive battles; it barely fielded 100 operable tanks and another 50 were in need of repair. Half of these were T-34 capable of opposing Panzer Mk IIIs and IVs, while the rest were light T-70s, only useful against infantry or armored cars. The road towards the encircled 6th Army was almost free and if the 4th Mechanized Corps had not intervened, Hoth would have had a greater chance to reach Paulus.

Although they suffered many losses, the Soviet forces were able to push German forces back to the banks of the Aksay River by the end of the day, while failing to retake the town. The losses sustained by the Red Army in the vicinity of Verkhne-Kumskiy allowed the 6th Panzer Division to enjoy a brief superiority in tank numbers. Fighting for Verkhne-Kumskiy continued for three days as the Red Army counterattacked the German bridgeheads across the Aksay River and German defenders in the town. The Germans were able to pin Soviet tanks in Verkhne-Kumskiy and destroy them using well emplaced anti-tank guns. With support from the Luftwaffe, the Germans were able to achieve a local success and began to push toward the Myshkova river. The 6th Panzer Division suffered heavy losses during its drive and took a brief respite after the battle to recondition. Minor damage to surviving tanks was repaired and the majority of the tanks incapacitated during the fighting at Verkhne-Kumskiy were repaired.

Soviet response: 13–18 December
The Fourth Panzer Army forced Stavka to recalculate its intentions for Operation Saturn and on 13 December Stalin and Stavka authorized the transfer of the 2nd Guards Army from the Don Front to the Stalingrad Front, where it would be ready on 15 December. This army had a strength of roughly 90,000 soldiers, organized into three Guards Rifle Corps (the 1st, 13th and 2nd). Operation Saturn was reduced to Operation Little Saturn, the breaking through of the Italian 8th Army and then engaging Army Group Don in the rear. The offensive was also changed from a southward to a southeastern direction and the start date was pushed back to 16 December. The 4th Mechanized and 13th Tank Corps continued to counterattack against German forces in the vicinity of the Aksay River, trying to delay their advance in anticipation of the arrival of the 2nd Guards Army.

The Soviet 1st and 3rd Guard Armies, in conjunction with the Soviet 6th Army, launched Operation Little Saturn on 16 December. Despite stubborn resistance from Italian troops, the Red Army was able to partially overrun the Italian 8th Army by 18 December. The breakthrough—even if small and quickly contained—proved a possible threat to Army Group Don's left flank, while the city of Rostov-on-Don was threatened by the 3rd Guards Army. This and the losses sustained by the German armored divisions forcing their way to the Myshkova river, forced Manstein to reconsider the offensive. Manstein decided that he could not defend his left flank and continue the attempt to relieve the 6th Army. Although the 6th Panzer Division was able to cross the Myshkova River by the night of 19 December, the LVII Panzer Corps had still not made major advances against increased Soviet opposition, despite the arrival of the 17th Panzer Division; it seemed as if the corps would have to go on the defensive. The Soviet Tatsinskaya Raid managed to destroy the airfield and several dozen aircraft being used by the Luftwaffe to supply forces inside the Stalingrad pocket, forcing Manstein to order the XLVIII Panzer Corps on the defensive, instead of reserving it to bolster his forces directed toward the breakthrough to Stalingrad.

Collapse: 19–23 December
By 19 December, the LVII Panzer Corps managed to break through the Aksay River and drive within 48 km of the southern edge of the 6th Army's front. Colonel Wilhelm Adam makes the point the 6th Army tanks only had fuel for 30 km, after which they would need fuel and ammunition flown in to go any further. The 6th Army did not have the strength to attempt a breakout, with less than 70 serviceable tanks and dwindling supplies, while its infantry were in no condition to attempt an attack in the blizzard which had developed over the past few days. Manstein ordered the 6th Panzer Division to end its offensive and redeploy to the southern Chir River, to bolster the defenses there against the Soviet offensive, on 23 December. By 24 December, the Fourth Panzer Army was in full retreat, returning to its starting position. The failure to break through to the 6th Army and its refusal to attempt a breakout, caused Operation Winter Storm to collapse on 24 December, as Army Group Don returned to the defensive.

Aftermath
With the German relief effort defeated, Stavka was free to concentrate on the destruction of Axis forces in the Stalingrad pocket and the westward expansion of the Red Army's Winter offensive. The Red Army was able to bring to bear almost 150,000 personnel and 820 tanks against the retreating 4th Panzer Army and although Volsky's 4th Mechanized Corps (renamed 3rd Guard Mechanized Corps on 18 December 1942) was withdrawn to be refitted, the 51st Army, the 1st Guards Rifle and 7th Tank Corps struck at German units withdrawing between the Mushkova and Aksai Rivers. In three days, the attacking Soviet units broke through the Romanian positions guarding the LVII Panzer Corps' flank and threatened the 4th Panzer Army from the south, forcing the Germans to continue withdrawing to the southwest. All the while, the XLVIII Panzer Corps—led mainly by the 11th Panzer Division—strove to maintain its position along the Chir River. Despite success, the XLVIII Panzer Corps was rushed to the defense of Rostov as a Soviet breakthrough seemed imminent after the partial collapse of the Italian 8th Army. As the Red Army pursued the 4th Panzer Army toward the Aksai River and broke through the German defense on the banks of the Chir River, it also began to prepare for Operation Ring—the reduction of the forces in Stalingrad.

German forces in Stalingrad soon began to run out of supplies, with horse meat used to supplement diets. By the end of 1942, the distance between the German 6th Army and forces outside of the encirclement was over 65 km, and most of the German formations in the area were extremely weak. Hitler's insistence in holding Stalingrad to the last risked the existence of the 6th Army. The end of the German offensive also allowed the Red Army to continue in its efforts to cut off German forces in the Caucasus, which would begin in the middle of January. On the other hand, the encirclement of the 6th Army and the operations to destroy it tied down a considerable number of Soviet troops, which affected Soviet operations on other sectors.

title: Operation Winter Storm


text: User talk:65.27.15.102

title: User talk:65.27.15.102


text:
Midtown, Houston

Midtown is a central neighborhood of Houston, located west-southwest of Downtown. Separated from Downtown by an elevated section of Interstate 45 (the Pierce Elevated), Midtown is characterized by a continuation of Downtown's square grid street plan, anchored by Main Street and the METRORail Red Line. Midtown is bordered by Neartown (Montrose) to the west, the Museum District to the south, and Interstate 69 to the east. Midtown's 325 blocks cover 1.24 mi2 and contained an estimated population of nearly 8,600 in 2015.

Originally populated as a Victorian-style residential neighborhood in the 19th century, Midtown experienced an economic depression during the latter half of the 20th century, resulting in the departure of residents and businesses and a proliferation of vacant land. The formation of the Midtown Redevelopment Authority in the early 1990s and a renewed interest in Houston's urban core resulted in the gentrification of the district throughout the 2000s, fueled by an influx of young residents and the development of a vibrant nightlife. Like many other gentrified areas of Houston, Midtown's street signs are themed, specific to the area's logo, and there are many parks, sculptures, and businesses that include “Midtown” in their name, as a form of economic unity and to further attract more visitors and residents. Midtown has continued its rapid development through the 2010s, but the district continues to face issues of crime, inadequate infrastructure, chronic homelessness, and geographic disparities in public investment.

History
Around 1906 what is now Midtown was divided between the Third Ward and Fourth Ward. Before the 1950s what is now Midtown was a popular residential district. Increasingly, commercial development led homeowners to leave for neighborhoods they considered less busy. The area became a group of small apartment complexes, low-rise commercial buildings, and older houses. According to a City of Houston report, the remaining churches and the Houston Community College System Central campuses provided the neighborhood's "only stability."

In the 1970s, Midtown became home to Little Saigon, a neighborhood of Vietnamese and Vietnamese Americans, who pioneered the redevelopment of Midtown Houston. During the 1980s, Travis and Milam Streets were viewed as a mirror image of 1970s era Saigon. The Vietnamese areas were established around Milam Street, Webster Street, Fannin Street, and San Jacinto Street. By 1991 this Little Saigon had Vietnamese restaurants, hair salons, car shops, and travel agencies. Mimi Swartz of Texas Monthly stated in 1991 that "Little Saigon is a place to begin easing into a new country".

On June 24, 1994 Isabella Court at 3909-3917 South Main Street received listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The City of Houston established the Midtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) in 1995. The establishment of the TIRZ led to the opening of upper income townhomes and apartment complexes in western Midtown and the area along Elizabeth Baldwin Park. Between 1990 and 2000 the area within the Midtown Superneighborhood saw the population increase from 3,070 to 5,311. The increase by 2,241 people was 73% of the 1990 population. During that period about 2,200 multi-family units opened, particularly along Louisiana Street and West Gray Street. Since the total multi-family acreage remained at a small number, the population increase also increased the density of the area. During the 1990s commercial uses increased, particularly along Main Street and Louisiana Street. In 1999 the 76th Texas Legislature created the Midtown Management District.

By 2004, higher rents and street construction have reduced the number of Vietnamese American businesses, many of which have relocated to the outer Houston Chinatown in the Bellaire Boulevard corridor west of Sharpstown. On May 1 of that year, during the 6th Annual Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Festival, the section of Midtown along Milam Street and Travis Street near Tuam Street received the designation "Little Saigon."

In 2009 Houston City Council approved the expansion of the Midtown TIRZ by 8 acre. The new territory includes the Asia House, the Buffalo Soldiers Museum and the Museum of African-American culture.

In 2014 the ranking website Niche stated that Midtown was the favorite neighborhood for millennial people.

Cityscape
In 2010 Denny Lee of The New York Times said that Midtown, a "mixed-use" district, was "dotted with" bánh mì restaurants. By 2012 many new bars, retail operations, and restaurants had opened in Midtown. Ed Page, a retail broker, said in 2012 that Midtown has not yet seen any significant new retail; he was referring to big box stores.

As of 2010 five flower shops are located along Fannin in a section of Midtown. One decade before 2010 there were over one dozen flower shops in that area. In 2003 the flower shop owners were mostly Asian. The shops, along four city blocks, were centered on Rosedale Street. The number declined after the establishment of the METRORail Red Line. Nancy Sarnoff of the Houston Chronicle said in 2010 that the remaining flower shops told her that the establishment of the line helped cause several of their competitors to go out of business.

Midtown has no traditional hotels. As of 2023, Midtown has one bed and breakfast and other rental units available.

Little Saigon
Midtown was known for a concentration of Vietnamese businesses, termed "Little Saigon". Vietnamese in Houston, in the 1970s, had settled Allen Parkway Village. Midtown was in proximity and was relatively inexpensive. Midtown became a center of business and religion for ethnic Vietnamese across the Houston area even though very few ethnic Vietnamese actually resided in Midtown.

By 1991 this Little Saigon had Vietnamese restaurants, hair salons, car shops, and travel agencies, and as of 2000 businesses there included grocery stores, medical and legal offices, restaurants, music and video stores, hair styling shops, business service offices, and jewelry stores. Mimi Swartz of Texas Monthly stated in 1991 that in what is now Midtown, "Little Saigon is a place to begin easing into a new country." Due to the actions of a group of Vietnamese-American leaders led by My Michael Cao, who served as the President of the Vietnamese Community of Houston and Vicinity (VNCH), a resolution that installed Vietnamese street signs along Milam Street in Midtown was passed. Vietnamese street signs have denoted the area since 1998. In 2004, this area was officially named "Little Saigon" by the city of Houston.

The redevelopment of Midtown Houston from run-down to upscale increased property values and property taxes, forcing many Vietnamese-American businesses out of the neighborhood into other areas. By 2003 the number of Vietnamese business declined, with many of them moving to the Southwest Houston Little Saigon, despite the beautification projects occurring. Hope Roth stated c. 2017 that pressure from other new developments and increase in costs related to land and space caused a decline in Little Saigon. Roth stated that many of the area restaurants still remain, but increasingly cater more to mainstream American tastes. In 2010 Denny Lee of The New York Times wrote that "traces" of the Vietnamese community remained.

Demographics
As of 2012 Midtown has about 8,600 people. Midtown had a 65% population increase in a ten-year period.

According to the 2000 Census, the Super Neighborhood #62 Midtown (which mostly corresponds to the boundaries of the Midtown District) contained a total of 5,311 residents. The racial makeup of the area was 45% (2,439 people) White, 18% (949 people) Black or African American, 6% (320 people) Asian, less than 1% (8 people) Native American, less than 1% (35 people) from other races, 1% (70 people) from two or more races and 28% (1,490 people) of the population were Hispanic or Latino The super neighborhood contained a total of 4,559 people above the age of 18. The super neighborhood contained a total of 3,219 people who were male and 2,092 people who were female. 18 people were in nursing homes. Nobody was in a correctional institution, a university or college dormitory, or a military quarter. There were 2,326 households, with a population of 4,142 in those households. The average household size is 1.78 people.

Some parts of the Midtown TIRZ are within Super Neighborhood #66 Binz.

Transportation

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, is the area transit authority. The METRORail Red Line runs directly through Midtown along Main Street. Three stops (Wheeler, Ensemble/HCC, and McGowen) are located in Midtown. Bus routes 1, 8, 25, 60, 65, and 182 stop at Wheeler Station. Routes stopping at the Downtown Transit Center, adjacent to Midtown and located in Downtown, include 11, 15, 24, 30, 35, 52, 60, 70, and 77. Other routes serving Midtown include 3, 5, 33, 42, 44, 53, 56, 82, 85, 102, 108, 131, 261, 262, 265, 269, 274, and 283.

An intercity bus station served by Greyhound Lines and several bus lines that serve Mexico and Central America) were located in Midtown. The bus station was built in 1979 and had 15 bus bays. Additional buses came to the Midtown bus station after the 1990 closing of a bus terminal east of Downtown. In 2008 the Houston Press named the Greyhound Terminal as "best place to people watch." In 2023 the Greyhound station is scheduled to close after November 30, 2023 and consolidate with a bus station in Magnolia Park, East End serving other lines. As criminal activity had occurred around the station, there were people living in the area who had a positive reception to the station's closure.

Local government
The Midtown Management District is headquartered in Suite 355 at 410 Pierce Street. During previous eras the management district was headquartered in Suites 350–355 in the Bienville Building at 3401 Louisiana Street.

Houston Fire Department Station 7 is located in Midtown. The station is in Fire District 8. The station "Young America #7" first opened in 1878. Several months later the station's name changed to "Eagle #7" and the station was located on Congress Street near Main Street. In 1899 the station moved to the intersection of McIlhenny and Milam. The station moved to its current location in 1969. A renovation was scheduled for the financial year of 2009.

The Houston Police Department's South Central Patrol Division, headquartered at 2022 St. Emanuel., serves the district.

As of 2011 two Houston City Council districts, C and D, cover portions of Midtown. Previously two districts, D and I covered portions of Midtown.

The City of Houston established the Midtown Tax Increment Investment Zone, which takes a portion of the ad valorem taxes generated within its boundaries to finance infrastructure and reimburse developers, in 1995. A nine-member board of directors appointed by the City of Houston, Harris County, and the Houston Independent School District (HISD) governs the Midtown TIRZ, which is also known as Reinvestment Zone Number 2.

Harris Health System (formerly Harris County Hospital District) designated Martin Luther King Health Center for the ZIP code 77004, Casa de Amigos Health Center in Northside for 77006, and Ripley Health Center in the East End for 77002. The nearest public hospital is Ben Taub General Hospital in the Texas Medical Center.

State representation
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) operates the Houston VII District Parole Office in Midtown. Midtown is located in District 147 of the Texas House of Representatives. As of 2008, Garnet F. Coleman represents the district. Midtown is within District 13 of the Texas Senate; as of 2008 Rodney Ellis represents that district.

Federal representation
Midtown is in Texas's 18th congressional district. As of 2008 its representative is Sheila Jackson Lee.

The Sam Houston Station, the new Houston Post Office on Hadley Street in Midtown, became the city's main post office in 2015, replacing the previous one in Downtown Houston.

The United States Government operates the La Branch Federal Building in Midtown; originally built as a Veterans Administration Building in 1946, it as of 2009 houses federal offices. The Social Security Administration previously had its own office at 3100 Smith Street.

Foreign governments
The Chinese Consulate-General, Houston maintained an education office in Midtown. The consulate closed in 2020.

Economy
Spec's Wine, Spirits & Finer Foods has its headquarters in Store #00 Downtown Location in Midtown. At one time the FlightAware headquarters were in Midtown.

Colleges and universities
Houston Community College System's Central Campus is located in Midtown.

Midtown is close to the University of Houston (UH), the University of Houston–Downtown (UHD), Texas Southern University, Rice University, and University of St. Thomas.

Public schools
Midtown is served by Houston Independent School District (HISD). Midtown is divided between Trustee District IV, represented by Paula M. Harris as of 2008, and Trustee District VIII, represented by Diana Dávila as of 2008.

Two schools, Gregory-Lincoln Education Center (in the Fourth Ward) and MacGregor Elementary School (in the Hermann Park area), serve sections of Midtown for primary school. All pupils in Midtown who are north of U.S. Route 59 (all of the Midtown Super Neighborhood and almost all of the Midtown Management District) are zoned to Gregory-Lincoln Education Center for middle school. A small portion of the Midtown Management District south of U.S. Route 59 (which is in Super Neighborhood #66 Binz instead of Super Neighborhood #62 Midtown) is zoned to Cullen Middle School; the portion contains one multi-family residence. Beginning in 2018 Baylor College of Medicine Academy at Ryan also serves as a boundary option for students zoned to MacGregor elementary school.

Almost all of Midtown is zoned to Lamar High School (in Upper Kirby), while a small northwest section of Midtown is zoned to Reagan High School (in the Houston Heights).

An HISD magnet secondary school, Houston Academy for International Studies, is located in the HCCS Central campus. The Young Women's College Preparatory Academy (formerly housing the Contemporary Learning Center), an alternative public school, is near Midtown. A state charter school, a charter school not affiliated with HISD, called Houston CAN! Academy Main is also located in Midtown.

Carnegie Vanguard High School, in the Fourth Ward, is in proximity to Midtown.

History of public schools in Midtown
Charlotte Allen Elementary School opened on February 1, 1907. At the time schools were segregated by race, and Allen was reserved for white children. It was later converted into a school for black children. San Jacinto High School, located in Midtown, and Reagan High School, located in the Houston Heights, opened in 1926. Lamar High School opened in 1937. In 1956 Allen Elementary moved to northwest Houston and its former location became J. Will Jones Elementary School. Ryan Middle School opened in 1958 after Yates High School moved to a new location.

In 1962 San Jacinto High School gained a technical program. Gregory-Lincoln Education Center opened in 1966. In 1971 San Jacinto lost its neighborhood program. During the same year, Fannin Elementary School, which was located at 2900 Louisiana Street in what is now Midtown, closed. In 1976 the Contemporary Occupational Training Center, a non-traditional vocational school, opened in what is now Midtown. In 1985 San Jacinto closed for good when its technical program ended. As of 2008 the San Jacinto campus now houses the central campus for Houston Community College. The Contemporary Occupational Training Center closed in 1991.

J. Will Jones Elementary School, located in Midtown, received an unacceptable academic rating from the Texas Education Agency. Under principal Brian Flores, the school's test scores increased in a five-year period until 2009. Around 2009 the school provided bus services to several homeless shelters within the school's attendance zone. As of 2009, over 1/3rd of Jones's students were homeless. About 100 of the around 300 students were homeless, and about 30 came from a Salvation Army shelter. Flores said that this was the highest number of homeless students during his career as a principal at Jones. In 2008 99% of the students were on free or reduced lunch. Every year the school held its "Gift of Giving" ceremony.

Before the start of the 2009–2010 school year Jones was consolidated into Blackshear Elementary School, a campus in the Third Ward. During its final year of enrollment J. Will Jones had more students than Blackshear. Many J. Will Jones parents referred to Blackshear as "that prison school" and said that they will not send their children to Blackshear. Jones was scheduled to house Houston Community College classes after its closure as a school. Supporters of keeping J. Will Jones created a campaign to try to keep J. Will Jones open. The Jones campus became the campus of Houston Academy for International Studies. Blackshear and Gregory-Lincoln elementary took portions of J. Will Jones's former territory in Midtown. The portion zoned to Cullen Middle was zoned to Ryan Middle School until 2013. As part of rezoning for the 2014–2015 school year, all areas in Midtown previously under the Blackshear attendance zone were rezoned to Gregory-Lincoln K-8.

Private schools
the British International School of Houston in Greater Katy has a school bus service to Midtown.

The Kinkaid School, a private school, was located in the house of Margaret Kinkaid, what is now Midtown, from its founding in 1906 to the time when the school moved to a campus in Montrose. In 1957, the school moved to the city of Piney Point Village, where it resides as of 2008. Saint Agnes Academy, a private school, was located in what is now Midtown from its founding in 1906 to 1963. The school moved to the Sharpstown neighborhood in 1963, where it resides as of 2008.

Holy Rosary Catholic School of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Houston opened c. 1913 and closed in 1963. The establishment of freeways caused suburbanization, and therefore, population loss, to occur in the area. Initially the parish kept the school building in hopes that the school would be re-established, but it was to be demolished in 2003 so a parish hall could be built there. Tom Bass and Gale Storm were alumni.

Culture, parks and recreation
Midtown Park is located at the intersection of Bagby and Gray. The Midtown Management District and several businesses provided funding for the park. Elizabeth Baldwin Park, operated by the City of Houston, is located at 1701 Elgin Street. The 4.88 acre Park is between Crawford Street and Chenevert Street. The City of Houston acquired Baldwin Park in 1905. The stone fountain is from 1912. The park received upgrades in 1930 and 1931 stemming from a bond. A 2003 Midtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone bond sale and Midtown Management District plans led to further improvements. The park received a rededication on November 13, 2006. The park includes a Vietnamese Heritage Plaza which commemorates the Vietnamese settlement in Midtown. Peggy's Point Plaza Park, operated by the city, is located at 4240 Main Street.

Rice University housed their technology park, Rice Innovation District within Midtown.

In 2008, David Crossley from the Houston Tomorrow group proposed that the City of Houston should build a park in the area bound by Main Street and Travis Street on the north end and Tuam Street and McGowen Street on the south end. Crossley called the proposal "McGowen Green." John Nova Lomax, a journalist, published an article about the proposed park in the Houston Press.

In 2012 the Midtown Redevelopment Authority and Camden Development Inc. announced that a new park would be established in Midtown in a 3.5 acre empty lot, for about $7 million.

The Ensemble Theatre, an African-American theater company, has its studio in Midtown. The theater, founded by George Hawkins in 1976, is the largest African-American theater company in the United States.

Syd Kearney of the Houston Chronicle stated that the opening of the Farrago World Cuisine Restaurant in 2000 "was one of the signs that once sleepy Midtown was coming to life." This restaurant closed in July 2013.

A gay nightclub, Rich's Houston, was in Midtown. In 2019 the club announced it was going to Montrose, where it was previously.

Religion
Trinity Episcopal Church is in Midtown.

Holy Rosary Catholic Church of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is in Midtown. The parish was established in 1913. In 1933 it constructed a parish hall. Pastor Joseph Konkel described that parish hall as the city's "only major construction project" due to the effects of the Great Depression on the city's economy. Post-1970s suburbanization had resulted in a decline in parish membership. Circa 1994 the church bought 7000 sqft, which it used for educational programs, in an office complex. Parish membership increased due to gentrification of Midtown post-1994. By 2004 a 15000 sqft expansion was under way. In 2004 about 25% of the congregation was ethnic Vietnamese, and there are two masses per week in the Vietnamese language. Therefore, it is one of five Vietnamese Catholic churches in the Houston area.

The former Temple Beth Israel is in Midtown.

Media
The Houston Chronicle is the citywide newspaper. The Midtown Paper is a local area newspaper.

title: Midtown, Houston


text:
User:Proclub

Hi there!

My actual name is János and I'm from Hungary. I mostly comment and correct articles in WikiPedia.

I am interrested in computer science, technology, psychology, esoteric knowledge, such as telepathy, healing, etc.

Love & Light!

J

proclub [@t] karinthy [.] hu

title: User:Proclub