document_title: Flag of Chile

question_text: who had the flag first texas or chile

question_tokens: who had the flag first texas or chile

text: Flag of Chile

text: History of Chile[edit]

text: Pre-Independence flags[edit]

text: The first records on the possible use of flags by indigenous peoples date back to the War of Arauco, the most famous being the use described in the late 16th century epic poem La Araucana. In Canto XXI, Alonso de Ercilla described Talcahuano, warrior and chief of the Mapuche who work the lands near the present-day city that bears his name, bearing emblems of blue, white and red. Another important piece of information is that the colors of the flag were chosen from the ancient chile that they made which was treasured worldwide.

text: Two flags have been documented as used by Mapuche troops. However, these descriptions were made late in the eighteenth century without certainty about the age of them. One consisted of a five-pointed white star on a blue background similar to the canton of the current Chilean flag, while the second had a white eight-pointed star centered on a blue diamond with border zigzagged over a black background. The latter flag appears to be waved by the chief Lautaro in the best-known artistic representation of it, created by painter Pedro Subercaseaux.[3]

text: The main symbol of this flag is the star of Arauco, called guñelve, representing the flower of the canelo and the bright star of Venus. In the independence of Chile, Bernardo O'Higgins said that guñelve was direct inspiration for create the Chilean flag with the Lone Star.[4]

text: In the case of the colonizing troops, they used several Spanish flags. Each battalion had its own flag, which could incorporate different elements including the heraldic coat of arms of the King of Spain. One of the symbols most commonly used was the Cross of Burgundy, a jagged, red saltire crossed on a white cloth. The Cross of Burgundy was one of the main symbols of the Spanish Empire overseas, so it flew over the warships and was carried by the militia in the colonial territory during the Spanish colonization of the Americas.[citation needed]

text: In 1785, Carlos III established a uniform flag for all ships of the Spanish Armada, similar to the current flag of Spain. The use of this red-and-yellow flag would be extended in 1793 to "maritime towns, castles and coastal defenses." Despite the establishment of this new flag, the cross of Burgundy would still often used by colonial entities.[citation needed]

text: Flag of the Patria Vieja (1812–1814)[edit]

text: At the onset of the Chilean War of Independence, the First Government Junta was proclaimed on 18 September 1810, marking Chile's first step toward independence. It would be during the government of Jose Miguel Carrera in which the desire for emancipation would gain more strength. Nevertheless, the junta was established (at least nominally) as a way of controlling the government during the absence of King Fernando VII, so that the symbols of government remained Hispanic. Therefore, one of the first acts of his government would be the implementation of national symbols, such as an insignia, a coat of arms and a distinctive flag to identify the patriots. The first flag, according to tradition, would have been embroidered by the sister of the ruler, Javiera Carrera, and would be presented and raised for the first time on 4 July 1812 at a dinner with the United States consul Joel Roberts Poinsett to celebrate the anniversary of U.S. independence, an event having a great influence on the locals' struggle for independence.

text: Named the flag of the Patria Vieja ("Old Fatherland"), the flag had three horizontal stripes of blue, white and yellow. For some, the bands represent the three branches of government: majesty popular, law and force, respectively; to others, the stripes represent features of nature: the sky, the snowy Andes and fields of golden wheat, respectively. The following 30 September, during a celebration in the capital to commemorate the first government junta, the Chilean coat of arms, also called Patria Vieja, was solemnly adopted and included in the center of the flag.

text: Although the blue-white-yellow flag of the Patria Vieja was the most recognized, other versions utilized a different arrangement of the colors, such as white-blue-yellow, for example. On other occasions, the red Cross of Santiago was included in the upper left corner together with the coat of arms in the center. The cross originates from the victory of the patriot troops in the Battle of El Roble, where within the possessions of the captured war booty was a distinctive insignia of the Order of St. James, an important symbol of Spanish pride.

text: In 1813 after the royalist invasion and the outbreak of the War of Independence, the Spanish symbols were abolished and the tricolor flag was formally adopted by the patriotic forces in a ceremony at the Plaza Mayor of Santiago. Months later in 1814, Carrera left political and military power, and Francisco de la Lastra was chosen as Supreme director. The war of independence began at great losses for the patriot side, and so signed Treaty of Lircay on 3 May 1814. This agreement reaffirmed the Spanish sovereignty over the territory of Chile, among other things, and as one of its direct consequences, the Spaniard flag was readopted at the expense of the tricolor.

text: The flag of the Patria Vieja would wave again after Carrera's return to power 23 July 1814 until the Battle of Rancagua ( 1–2 October) where the royalist victory ended the patriot government and began the Reconquista (or Reconquest) from 1814 to 1817, restoring the imperial standard. The tricolor flag was last flown for the last time in the Battle of Los Papeles (Batalla de los Papeles), but it would appear again raised in the ships that José Miguel Carrrera brought in 1817 and during his campaigns in Argentina (1820–1821). The Reconquista ended with the victory of Liberation Army of the Andes (Ejército Liberatador de los Andes) in the Battle of Chacabuco on 12 February 1817. In this battle, the patriot troops fought with the army colonel and the flag of the Army of the Andes, inspired by the flag of Argentina, without readopting the blue-white-yellow standard.

text: Today, the flag of the Patria Vieja is used during memorial services for this Chilean historical period, conducted by the National Institute (Instituto Nacional General José Miguel Carrera), which Carrera's government founded (10 August 1813). The emblem, adopted as a symbol at the beginning of carrerismo, was subsequently adopted by Chilean nationalism movement. For example, the flag with a red lightning bolt emblem superimposed was the insignia of the National Socialist Movement of Chile between 1932 and 1938.

text: Flag of the Transition (1817–1818)[edit]

text: The victory at the Battle of Chacabuco on 26 May 1817 gave way to a new period known as the Patria Nueva (New Fatherland). A new flag was adopted that day, known today as the Flag of the Transition (Bandera de la Transición), and it is recognized as the first national flag and the last flag used until the one used currently. It was widely publicized at the time that the design was attributed to Juan Gregorio de Las Heras. This flag had three equal stripes: blue, white, and red. The bottom red strip replaced the yellow from the flag of 1812. The origin of the flag's colors would be based on the description given by Alonso de Ercilla as those of the insignia of the Mapuche troops. The significances of these colors were equivalent to those of the Patria Vieja, except that the yellow replaced the red to represent the blood that had been shed during the many conflicts.

text: Despite initial enthusiasm, the flag did not obtain official legalization and disappeared five months later. One reason for its suppression was that it was easily confused with both the flag of the Netherlands and the tricolor of revolutionary France, from which it was inspired.

text: According to the General History of Chile by Diego Barros Arana, the last time the Flag of the Transition was unfurled was at the ceremony to commemorate the Battle of Rancagua, two weeks before the adoption of the current national flag. However, there is information about a possible third flag between the Transitional and final, which would have exchanged the order of white and blue stripes and incorporated the five-pointed white star on the central strip, but that is no certainty, and it is not accepted by the majority of Chilean historians.

text: Third and Current flag[edit]

text: The design of the current Chilean flag is commonly attributed to Bernardo O'Higgins's Minister of War, José Ignacio Zenteno, having been designed by the Spanish soldier Antonio Arcos, although historians argue that it was Gregorio de Andía y Varela who drew it.

text: The flag was made official on 18 October 1817 by a decree,[5] of which only indirect references to the absence of a copy thereof, which was officially presented during the Pledge of Independence ceremony on 12 February 1818, a ceremony in which the bearer was Tomás Guido.

text: The original flag was designed according to the Golden Ratio, which is reflected in the relation between the widths of the white and blue parts of the flag, as well as several elements in blue canton. The star does not appear upright in the center of the rectangular canton, instead the upper point appears slightly inclined toward the pole in such a way that the projection of its sides divide the length of the canton golden proportion. Additionally, in the center is printed the National Coat of Arms, known from the previous Flag of the Transition and adopted in 1817.[6] [7]

text: The adoption of the star configuration goes back to the star used by the Mapuches. According to O'Higgins, the star of the flag was the Star of Arauco. In Mapuche iconography, the morning star or Venus, (Mapudungun: Wünelfe or the Hispanicized Guñelve) was represented through the figure of an octagram star or a foliated cross. Although, the star which was finally adopted bore a star having five points with the design of the guñelve remaining reflected in an asterisk inserted in the center of the star, representing the combination of European and indigenous traditions.

text: These designs soon fell into oblivion due to the difficulty in the flag's construction. So, the embroidered seal and the eight-pointed asterisk disappeared while the star was kept completely upright. In 1854 the proportion was determined in keeping with the colors of the flag, leaving the canton as a square and the ratio of hoist to fly set to 2:3. Finally in 1912, the diameter of the star was established, the precedence of the colors in the presidential flag and decorative cockade was determined, setting the order as blue, white and red from top to bottom or from left to right of the viewer.

text: All of these arrangements would later be recast into Supreme Decree No. 1534 of 1967 from the Ministry of the Interior during the government of Eduardo Frei Montalva. In this document, the national emblems, coat of arms, the rosette or cockade, and the presidential standard were established. Meanwhile, the Political Constitution of Chile of 1980 establishes in the first clause of article 222 that all inhabitants of the republic should respect Chile and its national emblems.

text: Few records remain of the original design, the most valuable being that of the flag used in the Declaration of Independence, which had a width of two meters and a length just over two feet. The flag was protected by various hereditary institutions until it was stolen in 1980 by members of the Revolutionary Left Movement as a protest against the military dictatorship. This group kept the specimen and returned it in late 2003 to the National Historical Museum, where it can be found today.

text: There is a rather popular legend in Chile that claims this third Chilean flag won a "Most Beautiful National Flag in the World" contest. Its most common version states that this happened in 1907 in Blankenberghe, Belgium, in the coast of the Baltic Sea  [sic].[8] Other versions of this story say this happened in the 19th century, or that the Chilean flag was placed second after the French flag; there are even variations that talk about Chile's national anthem, placing it either in the first place or second, after La Marseillaise. The fact that the only documented version of this story gets basic details wrong (Belgium has a coast on the North Sea, not the Baltic Sea) doesn't reflect well on its historical accuracy.

text: Similar flags[edit]

text: The flag of the U.S. state of Texas is similar to the Chilean flag. The flag of Texas was designed and adopted on 25 January 1839; whereas Chile adopted a flag similar to today's Chilean flag 22 years earlier on 18 October 1817.

text: Like Texas, on 17 January 1840; a coalition of nobles from the Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas advocated secession from Mexico to form their own federal republic called the Republic of the Rio Grande with Laredo (today part of Texas) as the capital but unlike Texas, was never formally recognized and ended in 6 November of the same year. Its flag was similar to Texas' in that there were three stars with a red hoist, and black and white bars on the side instead of one star with a blue hoist and white and red bars.

text: In 1822 during the Peruvian War of Independence, troops from both the Liberating Expedition of Peru (Expedición Libertadora del Perú) and the United Liberating Army of Peru (Ejército Unido Libertador del Perú) used a standard that was identical to the modern flag of Chile, except their flag had three stars in the canton, representing the three nations united by the cause of independence: the Argentine provinces, Chile and Peru.

text: On the other hand, the Chilean flag would have served as inspiration for the supporters of Cuban independence at the start the Ten Years' War in the so-called War Cry of Yara (Spanish: Grito de Yara) in 1868. The leader of this revolution, Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, would have been inspired to create the first Cuban flag named La Demajagua in honor of the place where the revolt began. Two main differences are that the red and blue colors are inverted and that the red canton extends to the middle of the fly instead of one-third as on the Chilean flag.

text: Céspedes would have been inspired by the Chilean flag as a way of honoring the efforts of Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna on behalf of Chile to achieve independence of Cuba after the Spanish defeat in the Chincha Islands War.[9] According to Cespedes's son, his father "imagined a new flag that bore the same colors as that of the Carreras and O'Higgins and that would differentiate itself from the disposition of those colors."[10] However, the flag would not have much success, and an earlier design would become the definitive Cuban flag.

text: The first flag of the Confederate States of America, known as the Stars and Bars, is somewhat similar to the flag of Chile.

text: The flag of Liberia, founded in 1847, also includes a single star on the canton, but it has multiple horizontal stripes similar to the United States Flag.

text: Also, the Flag of Malacca, a state in Malaysia, is similar, having the same colors (except the yellow star and moon) and a similar canton design, although the proportions and color order are different.

text: The state of Amazonas in Brazil also adopted a similar flag 1982. Its flag also has an elongated blue canton with multiple stars.

text:
Flag of Texas (1839)

Flag of the United States

Flag of the Liberating Expedition of Peru (1820)

Flag of the Republic of the Rio Grande (1840)

First flag of Cuba (1868)

First flag of the Confederate States of America "Stars and Bars" (1861)

Flag of Liberia (1847)

Flag of the Malaysian state of Malacca

Flag of the Brazilian state of Amazonas (1982)

Flag of Malaysia (1963)

Flag of the Czech Republic

Flag of Poland

text: Construction[edit]

text: The construction of the flag of Chile, at present, is officially defined in Supreme Decree No. 1,534 of the Ministry of the Interior, published in 1967, on the use of national emblems, which systematized and consolidated various laws and regulations on the subject. (Other laws include Law No. 2,597 of 11 January 1912, concerning the colors and proportions of the national flag, the presidential sash and rosette or cockade, and Supreme Decree No. 5805 of the Ministry of the Interior, published 26 August 1927, sets the size of the national flag for use in buildings and public offices.) According to the decree, the ratio between length and width of the flag is 3:2, being divided horizontally into two bands of equal size. While the lower section corresponds to the color red, the upper area is divided once in a blue square and a white rectangle whose lengths are in proportion 1:2, respectively. The star is located in the center of the blue canton and is constructed on a circle whose diameter is half the side of the canton.

text: Display[edit]

text: According to Chilean law, public use of the flag is allowed without prior authorization.[11] Before October 2011 its use was prohibited, without the approval of the governor concerned.[12][13] This rule, however, was rarely enforced, as the flag was widely used on street celebrations, stadiums or rallies, without penal consequences.[citation needed]

text: Public buildings and private residences are required to display the flag on Navy Day (21 May), National Day (18 September) and Army Day (19 September).[13][14] If the flag is displayed incorrectly or not displayed at all during these days, the person responsible may be fined.[15]

text: An exception was made in 2010 during the bicentennial celebrations, where display of the flag was permitted during the whole month of September.[16]

text: On a pole[edit]

text: According to the protocol concerned, the flag should be hoisted from the tip of a white mast, and if done in company with other flags different, they must be of equal or lesser size. The Chilean flag must be set to the left if the sum of the flags is an even number or the center if the sum is an odd number. The flag must also be the first to be lifted and lowered the last.

text: Freely hanging[edit]

text: The Chilean flag can be displayed hanging either vertically or horizontally from a building or wall. In both cases, the blue square should be to the viewer's upper left.[13]

text: Respect due to the flag[edit]

text: Article 22 of the 1980 Constitution of Chile states that all inhabitants of the Republic owe respect to Chile and to its national emblems. The national emblems of Chile are the national flag, the coat of arms of the Republic and the national anthem. Pursuant to article 6 of the State Security Act of Chile (Decreto No. 890 de 1975), it is a felony against the public order to publicly mistreat the flag, the coat of arms, the name of the motherland or the national anthem.

text: Regional flags[edit]

text: Chile is administratively divided into 15 regions in which the internal government corresponds to the intendant. Some regional governments have adopted their own insignias, though most lack relevance, being principally used for public, regional organizations. The only exception is the flag of the Magallanes and Antartica Chilena Region, which has been adopted as a symbol of identity Magellan by its inhabitants.[17]

text: The regional flags can be found in the Access Hall of the National Congress of Chile in the city of Valparaíso. Many communes and cities also have their own flags.

text:
Flag of the I Tarapacá Region

Flag of the II Antofagasta Region

Flag of the III Atacama Region

Flag of the IV Coquimbo Region

Flag of the V Valparaíso Region

Flag of the VI O'Higgins Region

Flag of the VII Maule Region

Flag of the VIII Biobío Region

Flag of the IX Araucanía Region

Flag of the X Los Lagos Region

Flag of the XI Aisén Region

Flag of the XII Magallanes and Antartica Chilena Region

Flag of the Santiago Metropolitan Region

Flag of the XIV Los Ríos Region

Flag of the XV Arica and Parinacota Region

text: Pledge to the National Flag[edit]

text: In memory of the brave heroes of the Battle of La Concepcion in 1882, on 9 July each year, the very day the final Chilean soldiers in La Concepcion died in defense of the Chilean nation, this Pledge to the Flag (Juramento de la Bandera) is recited at all installations and military bases of the Chilean Army, Chilean Navy and Chilean Air Force across the nation in remembrance of this great moment in Chilean history.

text: English translation of the pledge

text:
I (rank and name) pledge, to God and this flag,
to serve my Fatherland with loyalty,
whether in sea, on land, or anywhere else,
to give my life if need be,
to fulfill my military duties and obligations,
in accordance with the law and regulations,
to obey quickly and punctually the orders of my superiors,
to invest my efforts in being a brave, honorable and patriotic soldier (sailor, airmen)!

text: Gallery[edit]

text:
Lautaro, painting by Pedro Subercaseaux.

Cross of Burgundy, emblem of the King and Armed Forces in Spanish Empire.

Flag of Crown of Castile

Ancestral Araucanian Flag with the Guñelve, "the star of Arauco"

Naval ensign and national flag of Spain (1785–1873 and 1875–1931)

Possible flag used for a few days in 1817.

Standard of the Chilean President.


document_title: Rail Budget

question_text: who presented in the parliament the last separate rail budget of india

root

text: Rail Budget

text: History[edit]

text: Following the recommendation of the Acworth Committee in 1920-21, headed by British railway economist William Acworth[2] The "Acworth Report" led to reorganisation of railways, the railway finances were separated from the general government finances in 1921. After that in 1924 the budget was announced, a practice that continued till 2016.[3][4][5]

tag: p

text: The first live telecast took place on 24 March 1994.

text: Lalu Prasad Yadav, who remained Railways Minister from 2004 to May 2009, presented the railway budget 6 times in a row. In 2009, under his tenure a ₹108 billion (US$1.7 billion) budget was passed.[6]

text: In the year 2000, Mamata Banerjee (later Chief Minister of West Bengal) became the first female Railway Minister. In 2002, she became the first female to present the Railway budget and is the only woman to do so for two different governing coalitions (NDA and UPA).

text: In 2014 budget, Railway Minister D. V. Sadananda Gowda announced the first bullet train and 9 High-Speed Rail routes.[7]

text: The last Railway Budget [8] was presented on 25 February 2016 by Mr. Suresh Prabhu.


document_title: Six (TV series)

question_text: when does seal team six season 2 start

question_tokens: when does seal team six season 2 start

text: Six (TV series)

text: Premise[edit]

text: The series chronicles the operations and daily lives of operators who are part of the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), more commonly known as SEAL Team Six, which is one of the U.S. Armed Forces' primary counter-terrorism units.

text: Cast[edit]

text: Main[edit]

text:
Barry Sloane as Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (E-8) Joe "Bear" Graves a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 1/FD1[7]
Kyle Schmid as Chief Special Warfare Operator (E-7) Alex Caulder a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 2/FD2[8]
Juan Pablo Raba as Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (E-8) Ricky "Buddha" Ortiz a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 3/FD3[9]
Jaylen Moore as Chief Special Warfare Operator (E-7) Armin "Fishbait" Khan a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 5/FD5
Edwin Hodge as Special Warfare Operator First Class (E-6) Robert Chase a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 6/FD6[10]
Brianne Davis as Lena Graves[11]
Nadine Velazquez as Jackie Ortiz[11]
Dominic Adams as Michael Nasry[12]
Walton Goggins as Former Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (E-8) Richard "Rip" Taggart[13]
Eric Ladin as Special Warfare Operator First Class (E-6) Trevor Wozniak  a.k.a. Foxtrot Delta 4/FD4 (season 2)[14]
Nikolai Nikolaeff as Tamerlin Shishoni, a Chechen/Jihadi mastermind (season 2)[15]
Olivia Munn as Gina Cline, a high-level CIA Operations Officer (season 2)[16]

tag: ul

text: Recurring[edit]

text:
Nondumiso Tembe as Na'omi Ajimuda
Lindsley Register as Dharma Caulder
Tyla Harris as Esther
Jarreth J. Merz as Emir Hatim Al-Muttaqi
Donny Boaz as Special Warfare Operator First Class (E-6) Beauregard "Buck" Buckley a.k.a Foxtrot Delta 5/FD5 (season 1)
Rus Blackwell as Commander (O-5) Atkins, the commanding officer of White Squadron.
Zeeko Zaki as Akmal Barayev
Joshua Gage as Ricky Ortiz, Jr.
Jessica Garza as Anabel Ortiz
Britt Rentschler as Tammi Buckley
Angela Relucio as Lieutenant Junior Grade (O-2) Camille Fung
Katherine Evans as Marissa (season 2)[15]
Erik Palladino as Commander Scott Hughes, the new commanding officer of White Squadron. (season 2)[17]

text: Episodes[edit]

text: SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedFirst airedLast aired18January 18, 2017 (2017-01-18)March 8, 2017 (2017-03-08)210[18]May 28, 2018 (2018-05-28)TBA

tag: table

text: Season 1 (2017)[edit]

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitle [18]Directed byWritten byOriginal air date [18]US viewers(millions)11"Pilot"Lesli Linka GlatterDavid Broyles & William BroylesJanuary 18, 2017 (2017-01-18)1.73[19]
While on a mission in Afghanistan in 2014, U.S. Navy SEAL troop leader Rip Taggart makes a questionable decision when he takes out a possible threat, working for the terrorist Muttaqi, who claims he's American. Two years later, Rip is disbanded from his team and is working as a private security contractor in Nigeria helping to protect an all girls school. While on assignment, Rip is captured by terrorist organization Boko Haram, prompting Rip's former squadmates within SEAL Team Six, including one new member, to locate and rescue him. It is revealed that the brother of the boy Rip killed is alive and active.
22"Her Name Is Esther"Lesli Linka GlatterDavid BroylesJanuary 25, 2017 (2017-01-25)1.50[20]
While Rip sits in captivity resigned to his death at the hands of his captors, the rest of his old team engages a terrorist cell on a boat who has knowledge of his whereabouts. Bear and his wife visit a fertility clinic despite his reservations about the cost. Buddha is having troubles with his family.
33"Tour of Duty"Kimberly PeirceBruce C. McKennaFebruary 1, 2017 (2017-02-01)1.74[21]
The reasons behind Rip's departure from SEAL Team Six are revealed. In conjunction with executing the prisoner in Afghanistan, he was also known to be an alcoholic, straining his relationship with his then-wife. While his whereabouts were known to his old teammates through a videoclip that the Boko Haram have transmitted, Rip unsuccessfully tries to escape. Michael, the brother of the American killed by Rip who now works for Muttaqi, plots revenge against him by planning to pay the ransom that Boko Haram put on Rip's head and keeping him after.
44"Man Down"Mikael SalomonAlfredo Barrios Jr.February 8, 2017 (2017-02-08)1.55[22]
SEAL Team Six attempt to rescue Rip, as well as the kidnapped school girls and their teacher from the Boko Haram. However upon arrival in the camp, they discover the hostages gone, and the Boko Haram captors dead. They get themselves into a firefight with a group of soldiers left behind by Michael, who wounded SEAL operative Buckley.
55"Collateral"Peter WernerKaren CampbellFebruary 15, 2017 (2017-02-15)1.60[23]
SEAL Team Six deal with the loss of their teammate Buckley, who had died from his wounds at the Boko Haram compound. Meanwhile, Michael relocates the prisoners to Chad, where Muttaqi has a recruitment center for anyone who wants to enlist in his terrorist organization. Rip is forced to admit his "war crimes" on live television, particularly the time when he killed Michael's brother.
66"Confession"Clark JohnsonWilliam Broyles & Bruce C. McKennaFebruary 22, 2017 (2017-02-22)1.48[24]
SEAL Team Six deal with the fallout over Rip's confession video. They infiltrate the home of the sister of Michael's colleague, Akmal, who owns the jihad training center in Chad. Caulder's adultery is revealed while Bear's frustrations with his previous mission strains his marriage to Lena. Meanwhile, Michael's decision to capture Rip and kill his captors in the process comes to the attention of Muttaqi, who punishes him by honoring Rip's offer of exchanging him and the school girls for 20 of his imprisoned colleagues and giving Michael to Boko Haram to execute him.
77"Blood Brothers"Mikael SalomonDavid Broyles & Bruce C. McKennaMarch 1, 2017 (2017-03-01)1.35[25]
SEAL Team Six learns of the training facility's location in Chad and performs a reconnaissance mission to identify present targets and locate Rip and the hostages. Meanwhile, Rip and Michael form an uneasy alliance to create a power struggle within Muttaqi's organization, barely persuading Akmal in turning on his leader.
88"End Game"Alex GravesDavid Broyles & Alfredo Barrios Jr.March 8, 2017 (2017-03-08)1.59[26]
During the assault on the training facility, Rip kills Muttaqi before attempting an escape with the hostages. Michael assumes leadership of the group and attempts to recapture the prisoners. SEAL Team Six intervenes and successfully rescues the hostages while Michael recaptures Rip. A team composed of Caulder, Chase, and Ortiz corners Michael and Rip, taking Michael into custody. During the aftermath of the rescue, a withdrawn Rip attempts to disappear, only to be mortally wounded by Marisa, one of Michael's recent recruits.

text: Season 2 (2018)[edit]

text: The History Channel aired an hour-long special entitled "Mission Debrief" on May 23, 2018, as a recap of season 1.

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitle [18]Directed byWritten byOriginal air date [18]US viewers(millions)91"Critical"Colin BuckseyDavid BroylesMay 28, 2018 (2018-05-28)0.93[27]
During the aftermath of Rip's shooting, Rip succumbs to his gunshot wounds, deeply affecting Graves, Ortiz, and Caulder. While tracing the person responsible for ordering Rip's shooting, CIA Operations officer Gina Cline coerces intelligence from the girlfriend of Bosnian ringleader Dragan. The team's pursuit of Dragan fails when the latter detonates his suicide vest in order to prevent capture, but instead recover Dragan's codebook. Analysis by the CIA leads Cline to believe that an unknown jihadi leader code-named "The Prince", gave the order, and that Michael Nasry had business connections with him. To follow up on this intelligence, Cline visits Nasry at a CIA blacksite.
102"Ghosts"Kimberly PeirceBruce C. McKennaMay 30, 2018 (2018-05-30)0.79[28]
While interrogating Nasry to turn on The Prince, Gina reveals her story of a double-cross created by former CIA asset Tamerlin Shishoni during an operation in Bosnia in 2004, contextualizing Ortiz’s animosity with her. Meanwhile, Caulder narrowly avoids death after overdosing on Oxycodone to deal with his injuries from Dragan’s explosion. Graves has hallucinations that involve having conversations with Rip.
113"Dua"Stephen SurjikAlfredo Barrios Jr.June 6, 2018 (2018-06-06)0.67[29]
Intelligence given by Nasry deploys the SEAL team to a surveillance and kill/capture mission in Bosnia. During the operation, the SEALs tail Shishoni's convoy to a mixed-martial arts gym and attempt to apprehend him, but instead kill a body double, capture a henchman, with Caulder getting wounded in the process. Back in Virginia, Marissa kills her motel neighbor in order to cover up her assignment; and Jackie purchases a gun for self-defense.
124"Seesaw"Steve ShillEmmy GrinwisJune 13, 2018 (2018-06-13)0.89[30]
Cline resumes her interrogation with Nasry in order to properly vet his reliability as a source of information, and learns of his group's potential ties with Russia. Back in Virginia, Marissa resumes her surveillance activities on the Ortiz family; Graves attempts to reconcile with Lena; Caulder struggles with his medical recovery; and Khan struggles with keeping his cousin's family together. The Prince then kidnaps an American businessman who is a friend of the U.S. President and has ties to the American oil industry.
135"Masks"Peter WernerMax AdamsJune 20, 2018 (2018-06-20)0.76[31]
While undergoing therapy, Caulder makes an emotional connection with a female veteran. Meanwhile, Nasry and Cline coerce information out of the SEALs’ prisoner. Intelligence recovered by Nasry leads the team to a safe house in Azerbaijan. During the aftermath of the raid, only one secretary is saved, the businessman had been relocated, and the Prince sends the CIA a recorded video showing the assistant’s decapitated head. In the recorded video, the Prince demands that the CIA hand over Nasry in exchange for the businessman.
146"Indian Country"Scott MannDavid Broyles & Bruce C. McKennaJune 27, 2018 (2018-06-27)0.79[32]
Shortly after the Azerbaijan raid, Cline conducts another contentious operation with the SEALs in Georgia in order to escort Nasry to the Prince's designated exchange spot in Chechnya. Meanwhile, Caulder bonds with his daughter over a shooting session, while Jackie faces a moment of uncertainty in encountering a man who may or may not be an enemy.
157"FUBAR"TBATBAJuly 11, 2018 (2018-07-11)0.77[33]
THE SEALs and Clune take shelter in the village of Khishnet to perform the prisoner exchange. However, the Prince has instead sent a platoon of fighters to kill Nasry and the SEALs and capture Cline alive. The ambush is repelled by the SEALs with the aid of the villagers, and Nasry is released from captivity in an attempt to help undermine the Prince’s leadership. Back in Virginia, Caulder faints and learns that his next brain injury could be fatal; Marisa befriends Anabel and Jackie.
168"Scorpions in a Bottle"TBATBAJuly 18, 2018 (2018-07-18)TBD
179"The Reckoning"TBATBAJuly 25, 2018 (2018-07-25)TBD

text: Production[edit]

text: Joe Manganiello was originally cast as Rip Taggart[34] but left the series in April 2016 "due to a 'manageable' preexisting health issue".[35] About a week after Manganiello's departure, Walton Goggins was cast as his replacement. All of the already done shoots with Manganiello's character, nearly two full episodes, had to be re-shot.[13] Also Christopher Backus had been cast, but left the project to be on the series Roadies before the series started shooting.[36]

text: Season two, which consists of 10 episodes,[37] is being produced by a new production company, Six 2 North Productions Inc. Kimberly Peirce and Colin Bucksey are directors, with George Perkins the executive producer. Season two began filming on July 17, 2017, in Metro Vancouver, around Pemberton,[38] and throughout British Columbia, and will complete filming on November 23, 2017.[39][40]

text: Reception[edit]

text: On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an approval rating of 62% based on 13 reviews, with an average rating of 6.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Six's well-crafted action and engaging characters are intriguing in spite of the show's trite premise and familiar narrative."[41] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 54 out of 100 based on 14 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[42]


document_title: Article Three of the United States Constitution

question_text: where is the jury found in the constitution

text: Section 1: Federal courts[edit]

text: Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges.

text: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

text: Number of courts[edit]

text: Article III authorizes one Supreme Court, but does not set the number of justices that must be appointed to it. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 refers to a Chief Justice (who shall not preside over the impeachment trial of a President). The number of justices is fixed by statute at nine: the one chief justice, and eight associate justices.[1]

text: Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Because all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a division. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts."

text: The Supreme Court is the only federal court that is explicitly mandated by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior (i.e., lower) courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article I courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.

text: The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—frequently called the court-packing plan,[2]— was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.

text: The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished. The Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John Adams to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. Judicial code of 1911 abolished "circuit riding" and transferred the circuit courts authority and jurisdiction to the district courts.

text: Tenure[edit]

text: The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[3] George W. English,[4] and Samuel B. Kent,[5] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.

text: Salaries[edit]

text: The compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be increased, during their continuance in office.

text: Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury[edit]

text: Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

text: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

text: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

text: Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

text: Clause 1: Cases and controversies[edit]

text: Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have a genuine interest at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United kingdom determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy:

text: A significant omission is that although Clause 1 provides that federal judicial power shall extend to "the laws of the United States," it does not also provide that it shall extend to the laws of the several or individual states. In turn, the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent acts never granted the U.S. Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state supreme courts on pure issues of state law. It is this silence which tacitly made state supreme courts the final expositors of the common law in their respective states. They were free to diverge from English precedents and from each other on the vast majority of legal issues which had never been made part of federal law by the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court could do nothing about that, as it would ultimately concede in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938). By way of contrast, other English-speaking federations like Australia and Canada never adopted the Erie doctrine. That is, their highest courts have always possessed plenary power to impose a uniform nationwide common law upon all lower courts and never adopted the strong American distinction between federal and state common law.

text: Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity[edit]

text: In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), the Supreme Court ruled that Article III, Section 2 abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity and authorized federal courts to hear disputes between private citizens and States. This decision was overturned by the Eleventh Amendment, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 1 Stat. 402 and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. It prohibits the federal courts from hearing any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.[6]

text: Clause 2: Original and appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state.[7][8] In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

text: Often a court will assert a modest degree of power over a case for the threshold purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction, and so the word "power" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "jurisdiction".[9][10] Saves is invode in hurting

text: Judicial review[edit]

text: The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2.[11]

text: Though the Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review, many of the Constitution's Framers viewed such a power as an appropriate power for the federal judiciary to possess. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote,

text: The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[12]

text: Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.

text: A continuation of the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton [below] counterbalances the tone of "judicial supremacists" who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.

text: Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.[12] [emphasis added]

text: Hamilton continues. . .

text: It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.[12] [emphasis added]

text: Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall had neglected to deliver 17 of the commissions to their respective appointees. When James Madison took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the appointees, including William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions.

text: Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was then led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was the Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Justice Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, since it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving the States or ambassadors[citation needed]. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch.

text: However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, expressed the view that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent. Then in 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

text: You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[13]

text: Clause 3: Federal trials[edit]

text: Clause 3 of Section 2 provides that Federal crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his right. Also, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress. The United States Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases.[14]

text: Two of the Constitutional Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights contain related provisions. The Sixth Amendment enumerates the rights of individuals when facing criminal prosecution and the Seventh Amendment establishes an individual's right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. It also inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. The Supreme Court has extended the protections of these amendments to individuals facing trial in state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

text: Section 3: Treason[edit]

text: Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

text: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

text: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

text: The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

text: Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, including the Treason Act 1351, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of royal successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

text: Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

text: In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

text: Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

text: In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

text: As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

text: Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United Kingdom by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]


document_title: List of aircraft losses of the Vietnam War

question_text: how many huey helicopters were shot down in vietnam

text: United States aircraft[edit]

text: United States Air Force[edit]

text: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 2,197 of the losses were fixed-wing, and the remainder rotary-wing. The USAF sustained approximately 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties during the conflict, which compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and a 9.7 figure during World War II.[3][4]:268

text: USAF fixed-wing[edit]

text:
A-1 Skyraider—191 total, 150 in combat

First loss: A-1E 52-132465 (1st Air Commando Squadron [ACS], 34th Tactical Group [TG]) shot down during night training mission on 29 August 1964 near Bien Hoa, SVN (Capt Richard Dean Goss KIA, 1 VNAF observer [name unknown] KIA)[4]:10
Final loss: A-1H 52-139738 (1st Special Operations Squadron, 56th Special Operations Wing) which was shot down 28 September 1972 (pilot was rescued by an Air America helicopter)

A-7D Corsair II—6 total, 4 in combat

First loss: 71–0310 (355th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 354th TFW) on 2 December 1972 shot down on a CSAR mission in Laos (Capt Anthony Shine KIA)
71-0312 (353d TFS) mid-air collision with an FAC O-1 Bird Dog in Laos on 24 December 1972, (Capt Charles Riess POW)
71-0316 (355th TFS) operational loss (non-combat) crash in Thailand on 11 January 1973 (pilot rescued)
70-0949 (354th TFW) shot down Laos on 17 February 1973 (Maj J.J. Gallagher rescued)
71-0305 (3rd TFS, 388th TFW) shot down in Cambodia on 4 May 1973 (1Lt T.L. Dickens rescued)
Final loss: 70–0945 (354th TFW) shot down in Cambodia on 25 May 1973 (Capt Jeremiah Costello KIA)

A-26 Invader—22 total

First loss: B-26B 44-35530 (Detachment 2A, 1st ACG) shot down in IV CTZ on the night of 4–5 November 1962, killing the 3 crew
Final loss: A-26A 64-17646 (609th SOS, 56th SOW) lost over Laos on the night of 7–8 July 1969, killing both crewmen

A-37 Dragonfly—22 total

First loss: 1967, final loss: 1972

text:
AC-47 Spooky—19 total, 12 in combat

First loss: 1965, final loss: 1969

AC-119 Shadow/Stinger—6 total, 2 in combat

First loss: AC-119G 52-5907 (Det.1, 17th SOS, 14th SOW) which crashed on take-off from Tan Son Nhut, SVN on 11 October 1969, killing 6 of the 10 crewmen
Final loss: 1971

AC-130 Spectre—6 total, all in combat

First loss: AC-130A 54-1629 (16th SOS, 8th TFW) hit by 37mm Anti-aircraft gun over Laos and crash-landed at Ubon RTAFB, 2 crewmen died (one died of injuries before reaching Ubon) but 11 others survived.
Final loss: 1972

text:
B-52 Stratofortress—31 total (17 in combat, and two more being scrapped after sustaining battle damage)[5]

First losses were operational (non-combat) mid-air collision 2 B-52F 57-0047 and 57-0179 (441st Bomb Squadron, 320th Bomb Wing), 18 June 1965, South China Sea during air refueling orbit, 8 of 12 crewmen killed
Final loss: B-52D 55-0056 (307th Bomb Wing Provisional) to SAM 4 January 1973, crew rescued from Gulf of Tonkin

B-57 Canberra—56 total, 38 in combat

First loss: 1964, final loss: 1970

C-5A Galaxy—1 total, 0 in combat

Crashed while attempting emergency landing at Tan Son Nhut AB 4 April 1975, as part of Operation Babylift. Of the 8 US military women killed during the Vietnam War, 5 were aboard this airplane.

C-7 Caribou—19 total, 9 in combat

First loss: C-7B 62-4161 (459th Tactical Airlift Squadron, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing) which was hit by a US 155mm shell on 3 August 1967 in SVN killing the 3 crewmen. Note: there were two fatal crashes during Operation Red Leaf transition training of USAF crews in Army CV-2's, on 4 and 28 October 1966.[6]
Final loss: C-7B 62-12584 (483d TAW) which crashed in SVN on 13 January 1971, all 4 crewmen survived.

C-47 Skytrain—21 total

A C-47 was the very first USAF aircraft lost in the SEA conflict, C-47B 44-76330 (315th Air Division) on TDY at Vientiane, Laos which was shot down by the Pathet Lao on 23 March 1961 killing 7 of the 8 crewmen. The sole survivor, US Army Maj. Lawrence Bailey was captured and held until August 1962.
Final loss: EC-47Q 43-48636 (361st Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron, 56th SOW) shot down in Laos on the night of 04/5 4–5 February 1973, killing all 8 crewmen.

C-123 Provider—53 total, 21 in combat

First loss: C-123B 56-4370 attached to the 464th TAW which came down on an Operation Ranch Hand (defoliation) training flight between Bien Hoa and Vung Tau, SVN on 2 February 1962
Final loss: 1971

text:
C-130 Hercules—55 total, 34 in combat

First loss: C-130A 57-0475 (817th Troop Carrier Squadron, 6315th Operations Group) on 24 April 1965, a Blind Bat flareship that crashed into high ground near Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, attempting to land in bad weather with a heavy load, two engine failures, and low fuel, killing all six crewmen. This was the 14th recorded loss of a C-130 to all causes.
Final loss: C-130E 72-1297 (314th TAW) destroyed by rocket fire at Tan Son Nhut AB on 28 April 1975.

C-141 Starlifter—2 total, 0 in combat

First loss: C-141A 65-9407 (62d Military Airlift Wing) destroyed in a night runway collision with a USMC A-6 at Danang, SVN on 23 March 1967 killing 5 of the 6 crewmen.
Final loss: C-141A 66-0127 (4th Military Airlift Squadron, 62d MAW) crashed soon after take-off from Cam Ranh Bay, SVN on 13 April 1967 killing 6 of the 8 man crew.

E/RB-66 Destroyer—14 total

First loss: RB-66B 53-0452 (Det 1, 41st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, 6250th Combat Support Group) which crashed 22–23 October 1965 west of Pleiku, SVN killing the crew.
Final loss: EB-66B 42nd TEWS, 388th TFS lost to engine failure on 23 December 1972 during Operation Linebacker II. 3 crewmen were KIA.

EC-121 BatCat—2 total, 0 combat

First loss: EC-121R 67-24193 (554th Reconnaissance Squadron, 553d RW) crashed 25 April 1969 on take-off in a thunderstorm from Korat RTAFB, killing all 18 crewmen.
Final loss: EC-121R 67-21495 (554th RS) crashed on approach to Korat RTAFB on 6 September 1969, 4 of the 16 men were killed.

F-4 Phantom II—445 total, 382 in combat

First loss: operational (non-combat), F-4C 64-0674 (45TH TFS, 15th TFW) which ran out of fuel after strike in SVN on 9 June 1965; first combat loss F-4C 64-0685 (45th TFS, 15th TFW) shot down Ta Chan, NW NVN on 20 June 1965. 9 of the losses were parked aircraft struck by rockets.
Final loss: F-4D 66-8747 (432d TRW) on 29 June 1973.

F-5 Freedom Fighter—9 total

First loss: 1965, final loss: 1967

F-100 Super Sabre—243 total, 198 in combat

First loss: 1964, final loss: 1971

F-102 Delta Dagger—14 total, 7 in combat

First loss: 1964, final loss: 1967. 4 of the combat losses were parked aircraft.

F-104 Starfighter—14 total, 9 in combat

First loss: 56–0937 (476th TFS, 497th TFW) shot down by enemy ground fire during CAS mission near Tri Dao, Vietnam, on 29 June 1965, pilot Capt. R. Cole rescued[4]:24
Final loss: 57-0922 (435th TFS, 8th TFW) operational loss due to engine failure on 14 May 1967 in Thailand, pilot name unknown, survived[4]:100

text:
F-105D Thunderchief—335 total, 283 in combat

First loss: 62–4371 (36th TFS, 6441st TFW) written off from battle damage over Laos 14 August 1964, at Korat, Thailand
Final loss: 61–0153 (44th TFS, 355th TFW) shot down Laos 23 September 1970, pilot Capt. J. W. Newhouse rescued

F-105F/G Thunderchief—47 total, 37 combat

First loss: EF-105F 63-8286 (13th TFS, 388th TFW) shot down by AAA RP-6 July 1966, Maj. Roosevelt Hestle[7] and Capt. Charles Morgan KIA
Final loss: F-105G 63-8359 (Det.1 561st TFS, 388th TFW) shot down by SAM 16 November 1972, RP-3, crew rescued

F-111A Aardvark—11 total, 6 in combat

First loss: mission-related TFR failure, 66-0022 (428th TFS 474th TFW, Project Combat Lancer), 28 March 1968, Maj. H.E. Mccann and Capt. D.L. Graham MIA
Final loss: 67–0111 (474th TFW) mid-air collision over Cambodia, 16 June 1973, both crewmen rescued

HU-16 Albatross—4 total, 2 in combat

First loss: 51-5287 to unknown cause 19 June 1965
51-0058 to unknown cause, 3 July 1965
51-0071 (33d ARRS) shot down by AAA 14 March 1966, two crewmen killed
Final loss: 51-7145 (37th ARRS) disappeared 18 October 1966, 7 crewmen KIA-BNR

KB-50 Superfortress tanker—1 total, 0 combat

Only loss: KB-50J 48-0065 (421st Air Refueling Squadron Detachment) at Takhli RTAFB which crashed in Thailand on 14 October 1964, all 6 crewmen survived

KC-135 Stratotanker—3 total, 0 combat

Two crashes in 1968, one 1969, all operational (non-combat)

O-1 Bird Dog—172 total, 122 in combat

First loss: 1963
Final loss: 1972

O-2 Skymaster—104 total, 82 in combat

First loss: 1967
Final loss: 1972

OV-10 Bronco—63 total, 47 in combat

First loss: 1968
Final loss: 1973

QU-22 Pave Eagle—8 lost, 7 in combat

First loss: YQU-22A 68-10531 (554th RS, 553d RW) crashed due to engine failure on 11 June 1969
Final loss: QU-22B 70-1546 (554th RS) on 25 August 1972, pilot killed

RF-4C Phantom II—83 total, 76 in combat

First loss: 1966
Final loss: 1972

text:
RF-101 Voodoo—39 total, 33 in combat

First loss: 1964
Final loss: 1968

SR-71A Blackbird—2 total, 0 combat

First loss: 64-17969 (Det OL-8, 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing) suffered engine failure over Thailand on 10 May 1970, both crewmen ejected safely
Final loss: 64-17978 (Det OL-KA, 9th SRW) crashed on landing at Kadena, Okinawa on 20 July 1972, both crewmen survived

T-28 Trojan—23 total

First loss: 1962
Final loss: 1968

U-2C "Dragon Lady"—1 total, 0 combat

Only loss: 56–6690 (349th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron 100th SRW) which crashed on 8 October 1966 near Bien Hoa, SVN, Maj. Leo J Stewart ejected and was rescued

U-3B Blue Canoe—1 total, 1 in combat

Only loss: 60–6058, destroyed on the ground during a VC attack on Tan Son Nhut, SVN on 14 June 1968.

U-6A Beaver—1 total, 0 in combat

Only loss: 51-15565 (432d Tactical Reconnaissance Wing) which crashed in Thailand 28 December 1966, both crewmen survived

U-10D Courier—1 total, 1 in combat

Only loss: 63-13102 (5th SOS, 14th SOW) shot down 14 August 1969 near Bien Hoa, killing 1/Lt Roger Brown

text: USAF rotary-wing[edit]

text:
CH/HH-3 Jolly Green Giant—34 total, 25 in combat

First loss: CH-3E 63-9685 (38th ARRS) to AAA North Vietnam on 6 November 1965, three crewmen POW, one rescued
Final loss: HH-3E 65-12785 (37th ARRS) 21 November 1970, combat-assaulted inside Son Tay POW camp (Operation Ivory Coast) and deliberately destroyed by U.S. Special Forces

HH-43B Pedro—13 lost, 8 in combat

First loss: 63–9713 (38th ARRS) damaged by fire 2 June 1965, crew rescued and aircraft destroyed to prevent its capture
Final loss: 60–0282 (38th ARRS) crashed Cam Ranh Bay 7 August 1969, crew rescued

CH/HH-53 Super Jolly—27 total, 17 in combat

First loss: HH-53C 66-14430 (40th ARRS) in Laos, damaged by gunfire 18 January 1969 crew rescued and aircraft destroyed by bombing to prevent capture
Last losses: four CH-53s (68-10925, −10926, −10927, 70–1627, all from 21st SOS, 56th SOW) to AAA on 15 May 1975, Koh Tang, Kampuchea, (Mayaguez incident final aircraft losses of Vietnam War)

UH-1 Iroquois—36 total

text: United States Navy[edit]

text: Twenty-one aircraft carriers conducted 86 war cruises and operated 9,178 total days on the line in the Gulf of Tonkin. 530 aircraft were lost in combat and 329 more to operational causes, resulting in the deaths of 377 naval aviators, with 64 airmen reported missing and 179 taken prisoner of war.

text: USN fixed-wing carrier-based[edit]

text:
A-1 Skyraider—65 total, 48 in combat

First loss: A-1H 139760 (VA-145, USS Constellation), to AAA 5 August 1964, Lt.j.g. R. C. Sather KIA (body recovered in 1985)
Final loss: A-1H 134499 (VA-25, USS Coral Sea), to MIG 14 February 1968, Lt.j.g. J.P. Dunn MIA

A-3 Skywarrior—7 total, 2 in combat

First loss: A-3B 142250 (VAH-4, USS Hancock), operational loss (non-combat) 22 December 1964, 3 rescued, 1 killed
Final loss: A-3B 144627 (VAH-4, USS Kitty Hawk), AAA 8 March 1967, 3 crewmen KIA

text:
A-4 Skyhawk—282 total, 195 in combat

First loss: A-4C 149578 (VA-144, USS Constellation), AAA 5 August 1964, Lt.j.g. Everett Alvarez POW (second longest held prisoner)
Final loss: A-4F 155021 (VA-212, USS Hancock), AAA 6 September 1972, pilot rescued

A-6 Intruder—62 total, 51 in combat

First loss: A-6A 151584 (VA-75, USS Independence), own bomb detonation Laos 14 July 1965, crew rescued
Final loss: A-6A 157007 (VA-35, USS America), AAA South Vietnam 24 January 1973, crew rescued

A-7 Corsair—100 total, 55 in combat

First loss: A-7A 153239 (VA-147, USS Ranger), SAM North Vietnam 22 December 1967, LCdr J.M. Hickerson POW
Final loss: A-7E 156837 (VA-147, USS Constellation), operational loss (non-combat) 29 January 1973, pilot missing
Operation Frequent Wind loss—"The Enterprise flew 95 sorties in support of the operation, but on no occasion was any ordnance used in anger, although an A-7E was lost to undetermined causes". The pilot was rescued at sea.[8]

C-1 Trader—4 total, 0 in combat

First loss: C-1A 146047 (VR-21, USS Independence), non-combat 30 August 1965, 7 passengers and crew rescued
C-1A 136784 (VR-21, USS Independence), operational loss (non-combat) 12 September 1965, 9 passengers and crew rescued, 1 killed
C-1A 146016 (Composite Squadron Five VC-5), operational loss (non-combat) 8 August 1967, 3 passengers and 2 crew rescued
Final loss: C-1A 146054 (Carrier Air Wing 11, USS Kitty Hawk), operational loss (non-combat) 16 January 1968, 7 passengers and crew rescued, 3 killed

C-2 Greyhound—2 total, 0 in combat

First loss: C-2A 152796 (VRC-50, USS Constellation), Gulf of Tonkin crash 2 October 1969, 26 passengers and crew killed
Final loss: C-2A 152793 (VRC-50, USS Ranger), Gulf of Tonkin crash 15 December 1970, 3 crew killed

E-1 Tracer—3 total, 0 in combat

First loss: E-1B 148918 (VAW-12, USS Independence), operational loss (non-combat) 22 September 1965, crew rescued
Final loss: E-1B 148132 (VAW-111, USS Oriskany), operational loss (non-combat) 8 October 1967, 5 crewmen killed

E-2 Hawkeye—2 total, 0 in combat

First loss: E-2A 151711 (VAW-116, USS Coral Sea), 8 April 1970, 5 crewmen killed
Final loss: E-2B 151719 (VAW-115, USS Midway), 11 June 1971, 5 crewmen missing

EKA-3 Skywarrior—2 lost, 0 in combat

First loss: EKA-3B 142400 (VAQ-132, USS America), operational loss (non-combat) 4 July 1970, 3 rescued
Final loss: EKA-3B 142634 (VAQ-130, USS Ranger), operational loss (non-combat) 21 January 1973, 3 crewmen killed

EA-1 Skyraider—4 total, 1 in combat

First loss: EA-1E 139603 (VAW-111, USS Yorktown), operational loss (non-combat) 15 April 1965, crew rescued
Final loss: EA-1F 132543 (VAW-13, USS Franklin D. Roosevelt), operational loss (non-combat) 10 September 1966, crew rescued

text:
F-4 Phantom—138 total, 75 in combat

First loss: F-4B 151412 (VA-142, USS Constellation), operational loss (non-combat) 13 November 1964, crew rescued
Final combat loss (also last USN combat loss of war): F-4J 155768 (VF-143, USS Enterprise), AAA South Vietnam 27 January 1973, Cdr H.H. Hall and Lcdr P.A. Keintzer POW
Final loss: F-4J 158361 (VF-21, USS Ranger), operational loss (non-combat) 29 January 1973, crew killed

F-8 Crusader—118 total, 57 in combat

First loss: F-8D (VF-111, USS Kitty Hawk), to AAA over Laos 7 June 1964, LCdr C.D. Lynn rescued
Final loss: (operational) F-8J 150887 (VF-191, USS Oriskany) 26 November 1972, pilot rescued

KA-3 Skywarrior—2 lost, 0 in combat

First loss: KA-3B 142658 (VAH-4, USS Oriskany), operational loss (non-combat) 28 July 1967, 1 crewmen rescued, 2 killed
Final loss: KA-3B 138943 (VAH-10, USS Coral Sea), operational loss (non-combat) 17 February 1969, 3 crewmen killed

text:
RA-5 Vigilante—27 total, 18 in combat

First loss: RA-5C 149306 (RVAH-5, USS Ranger), operational loss (non-combat) 9 December 1965, 2 crewmen killed
Final loss: RA-5C 156633 (RVAH-13, USS Enterprise), to MiG-21 North Vietnam 28 December 1972, Lcdr A.H. Agnew POW, Lt. M.F. Haifley KIA

RF-8 Crusader—29 total, 19 in combat

First loss: RF-8A (Det. C VFP-63, USS Kitty Hawk), 6 June 1964, to AAA in Laos, Lt. C. F. Klusmann POW
Final loss: RF-8G 144608 (VFP-63, USS Oriskany), operational loss (non-combat) 13 December 1972, pilot rescued

S-2 Tracker—5 total, 3 in combat

First loss: S-2D 149252 (VS-35, USS Hornet), unknown combat loss 21 January 1966, 4 crewmen MIA
S-2E 152351 (VS-21, USS Kearsarge), combat loss 11 October 1966, 4 crewmen KIA
US-2C 133365 (VC-5, NAS Atsugi, Japan), combat loss 13 May 1967, 2 crewmen KIA
US-2C 133371 (VC-5, USS Hornet), operational loss (non-combat) 27 September 1967, crew rescued
Final loss: S-2E (VS-23, USS Yorktown), unknown combat loss 17 March 1968, 4 crewmen KIA

text: USN rotary-wing[edit]

text:
SH-2/UH-2 Sea Sprite—12 lost, 0 in combat

First loss: UH-2A 149751 (HC-1, USS Hancock), operational loss (non-combat) 10 January 1966, 4 crewmen rescued
Final loss: UH-2C 149767 (HC-1, USS Bon Homme Richard), operational loss (non-combat) 10 August 1969, 4 crewmen rescued

SH-3 Sea King—20 lost, 8 in combat

First loss: SH-3A 148993 (HS-2, USS Hornet), AAA North Vietnam 13 November 1965, 4 crewmen rescued
Final loss: SH-3D 156494 (HS-7, USS Saratoga), operational loss (non-combat) 31 December 1972, crew rescued

text: United States Marine Corps[edit]

text: U.S. Marine Corps aircraft lost in combat included 193 fixed-wing and 270 rotary-wing aircraft.

text: USMC fixed-wing[edit]

text: [citation needed]

text:
A-4 Skyhawk—81 lost
A-6 Intruder—25 lost
C-117 Skytrain—2 lost
EA-6A Intruder—2 lost
EF-10 Skynight—5 lost
F-4 Phantom—95 lost, 72 combat
F-8 Crusader—21 lost
KC-130 Hercules—4 lost
O-1 Bird Dog—7 lost
OV-10 Bronco—10 lost

text:
RF-4 Phantom—4 lost
RF-8 Crusader—1 lost
TA-4 Skyhawk—10 lost
TF-9 Cougar—1 lost

text: Source for F-4 losses is Phantom with U.S. Marine Corps (Joe Baugher), others are unsourced

text: USMC rotary-wing[edit]

text:
AH-1 Cobra—7 lost
HUS-1—75 lost
UH-1E Huey—69 lost
CH-37 Mojave—1 lost
CH-46D Sea Knight—109 lost
CH-53 Sea Stallion—9 lost[9]

text: United States Army[edit]

text: USA fixed-wing[edit]

text:
OV-1A/B/C/D Mohawk—65 lost[10]
O-1 Bird Dog—297 lost

text: USA rotary-wing[edit]

text: 5,086 (which include not in addition to the above statistics)[11]

text:
Bell 205—1 lost (Air America)
AH-1G—270 lost
BELL—1 lost

text:
CH-21C—14 lost
CH-34—2 lost
CH-37B—1 lost
CH-37C—1 lost

text:
CH-47A—83 lost
CH-47B—20 lost
CH-47C—29 lost
CH-54A—9 lost
H-13D—3 lost
H-37A—2 lost
OH-13S—147 lost
OH-23G—93 lost
OH-58A—45 lost
OH-6A—842 lost
UH-1—60 lost
UH-1A—1 lost
UH-1B—357 lost
UH-1C—365 lost
UH-1D—886 lost
UH-1E—90 lost
UH-1F—18 lost
UH-1H—1,313 lost
UH-34D—176 lost

text: Republic of Vietnam aircraft[edit]

text:
A-1 Skyraider
A-37A/B Dragonfly
AC-47
AC-119G/K Stinger—served March 1972
B-57 Canberra
C-7A Caribou—served late 1971 to mid-1974 (grounded due to budget cuts)
C-47 Skytrain
C-119 Flying Boxcar—served March 1968
C-123K Provider—served May 1973 to 1973 only (replaced by C-130A), 10 lost, 4 to ground fire
C-130A Hercules—2 combat losses
F-5A/B/C Freedom Fighter
F-5E Tiger II
U/H-1D/H Iroquois (helicopter)
C/UH-34C/D/G Choctaw (helicopter)
CH-47A Chinook (helicopter)
O-1 Bird Dog
O-2A Skymaster—served 1970 to mid-1974 (grounded due to budget cuts)
T-28 Trojan
T-37 Tweety Bird (trainer)
T-41D Mescalero (trainer)
U-6A Beaver
U-17A/B Skywagon

text: VNAF a/c details sourced from "Flying Dragon – The Republic of Vietnam Air Force" Robert C. Milikesh, Schiffer Military History, 2005

text: North Vietnam army captured 877 South Vietnam aircraft at war's end. The total number of downed and captured aircraft is unknown.[12]

text: Royal Australian Air Force[edit]

text: Fixed wing[edit]

text: 7 total

text:
C-7 Caribou—3 total, 1 in combat; all from No. 35 Squadron RAAF

Caribou A4-193 was destroyed by mortar fire while taxiing at That Son (near the Cambodian border) on 29 March 1970.[13]

English Electric Canberra—2 total, 2 in combat; both from No. 2 Squadron RAAF

First loss: Canberra A84-231 disappeared on 3 November 1970 on a night bombing mission in the northern 1st Corps Tactical Zone region of South Vietnam after dropping its bombs near Da Nang. Pilot Officer Robert Charles Carver (24) and Flying Officer Michael Patrick John Herbert (24), were both MIA until 30 July 2009 when their remains were positively identified.[14]
Final loss: A84-228 shot down by two SA-2 SAM missiles on 14 March 1971; Wing Commander F. J. L. Downing and Flight Lieutenant A.J. Pinches were both rescued.[13]

CAC Sabre—2 total, 2 in combat; both from No. 79 Squadron RAAF

First Loss: CA-27 Sabre Mk 32 A94-984; 24 September 1964, crashed 28 nautical miles west of RAAF Ubon, Thailand following engine failure; the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Ian McFarlane ejected
Final loss: CA-27 Sabre Mk 32 A94-986; 3 January 1968; crashed due to engine failure three miles south west of RAAF Ubon; Pilot Officer Michael McGrath was killed, one Thai national injured on ground. The first and only fatal crash by an RAAF aircraft in Thailand.

text: Rotary-wing[edit]

text: UH-1—6 total, all from No. 9 Squadron RAAF[13]

text: Democratic Republic of Vietnam Aircraft[edit]

text: Fixed-wing losses[edit]

text: Claimed by VPAF: 154 MiG aircraft lost through all causes, including 131 in air combat (includes 63 MiG-17s, 8 MiG-19s and 60 MiG-21s)[15][16]

text: People's Republic of China aircraft[edit]

text: MiG-17 Fresco—1 thought to be shot down[17]


document_title: List of largest empires

question_text: who ruled the largest empire in world history

text: List of largest empires

text: Measurement[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2017)

text: Both what constitutes an empire and the calculation of the land area of a particular empire are controversial subjects. Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives.[1]

text: Largest empires by land area[edit]

text: For context, note that the total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 km2 (57,506,000 sq mi).[2] This is a list of empires whose greatest extent exceeded 2% of that area.

text: Empires at their greatest extent[edit]

text: This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:List of largest empires. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Empire
Max. land area (million km2)
Max. land area (million mi2)
% of world land area
Year

British Empire
35.5[3]
13.71
7001238400000000000♠23.84%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Mongol Empire
24.0[3][4]
9.27
7001161100000000000♠16.11%
000000001270-01-01-00001270[4] or 000000001309-01-01-00001309[3]

Russian Empire
22.8[3][4]
8.80
7001153100000000000♠15.31%
000000001895-01-01-00001895[3][4]

Qing dynasty
14.7[3][4]
5.68
7000986990000099999♠9.87%
000000001790-01-01-00001790[3][4]

Spanish Empire
13.7[3]
5.29
7000920000000099999♠9.20%
000000001810-01-01-00001810[3]

Second French colonial empire
11.5[3]
4.44
7000772000000000000♠7.72%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Abbasid Caliphate
11.1[3][4]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000750-01-01-0000750[3][4]

Umayyad Caliphate
11.1[3]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000720-01-01-0000720[3]

Yuan dynasty
11.0[3]
4.25
7000739000000000000♠7.39%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3]

Portuguese Empire
10.4[5][unreliable source?]
4.02
7000698000000000000♠6.98%
000000001815-01-01-00001815[5][unreliable source?]

Xiongnu Empire
9.0[4][6]
3.47
7000604000000000000♠6.04%
-999999999824-01-01-0000176 BC[4][6]

Brazilian Empire
8.337[7]
3.22
7000560000000099999♠5.60%
000000001889-01-01-00001889[7]

Eastern Han dynasty
6.5[6]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000000100-01-01-0000100[6]

Ming dynasty
6.5[3][4]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000001450-01-01-00001450[3][4]

Rashidun Caliphate
6.4[3]
2.47
7000430000000000000♠4.30%
000000000655-01-01-0000655[3]

Göktürk Khaganate
6.0[4][6]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000000557-01-01-0000557[4][6]

Golden Horde Khanate
6.0[3][4]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Western Han dynasty
6.0[4][6]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
-999999999950-01-01-000050 BC[4][6]

Achaemenid Empire
5.5[4][6]
2.12
7000369000000000000♠3.69%
-999999999500-01-01-0000500 BC[4][6]

Tang dynasty
5.4[3][4]
2.08
7000363000000000000♠3.63%
000000000715-01-01-0000715[3][4]

Macedonian Empire
5.2[4][6]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
-999999999677-01-01-0000323 BC[4][6]

Ottoman Empire
5.2[3][4]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
000000001683-01-01-00001683[3][4]

Maurya Empire
5.0[4]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
-999999999750-01-01-0000250 BC[4]

Roman Empire
5.0[4][6]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
000000000117-01-01-0000117[4][6]

Tibetan Empire
4.6[3][4]
1.78
7000309000000000000♠3.09%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Timurid Empire
4.4[3][4]
1.70
7000295000000000000♠2.95%
000000001405-01-01-00001405[3][4]

Fatimid Caliphate
4.1[3][4]
1.58
7000275000000000000♠2.75%
000000000969-01-01-0000969[3][4]

Eastern Turkic Khaganate
4.0[6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000624-01-01-0000624[6]

Hephthalite Empire
4.0[6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000470-01-01-0000470[6]

Hunnic Empire
4.0[4][6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000441-01-01-0000441[4][6]

Mughal Empire
4.0[3][4]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000001690-01-01-00001690[3][4]

Great Seljuq Empire
3.9[3][4]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
000000001080-01-01-00001080[3][4]

Seleucid Empire
3.9[4][6]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
-999999999699-01-01-0000301 BC[4][6]

Italian Empire
3.798[8]
1.47
7000255000000099999♠2.55%
000000001938-01-01-00001938[8]

Ilkhanate
3.75[3][4]
1.45
7000252000000000000♠2.52%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Khwarazmian Empire
3.6[3]
1.39
7000242000000000000♠2.42%
000000001218-01-01-00001218[3]

Chagatai Khanate
3.5[3][4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3] or 000000001350-01-01-00001350[3][4]

Gupta Empire
3.5[4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000400-01-01-0000400[4]

Sasanian Empire
3.5[4][6]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000550-01-01-0000550[4][6]

Western Turkic Khaganate
3.5[6]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000630-01-01-0000630[6]

First French colonial empire
3.4[3]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001670-01-01-00001670[3]

Ghaznavid Empire
3.4[3][4]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001029-01-01-00001029[3][4]

Delhi Sultanate (Tughlaq dynasty)
3.2[3][4]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001312-01-01-00001312[3][4]

German colonial empire
3.199[9][10]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001912-01-01-00001912[10]

Song dynasty
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000980-01-01-0000980[3][4]

Uyghur Khaganate
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Western Jin dynasty
3.1[6]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000280-01-01-0000280[6]

Khazar Khanate
3.0[4]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000850-01-01-0000850[4]

Sui dynasty
3.0[6]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000589-01-01-0000589[6]