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

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

What is up with the RAF-emphasis? Every single aircraft and establishment listed in the first half of the article is of the RAF. Other nations uses target tugs as well, it would be nice to have a more balanced list. I added a sentence to this effect, but a more integrated approach would be better..45Colt 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it was because the original editor was more knowledgeable on the RAF target-tug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.245 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Target tug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020403005249/http://f-86.tripod.com/fsi.html to http://f-86.tripod.com/fsi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528160229/http://www.fraviation.com/about.aspx to http://www.fraviation.com/about.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a dangerous job, and there is a recorded accident in the article, but were there more accidents/incidents in Target tug history? Especially for the introduction of guided missiles. cheers! <3

(this is aiming to better the article, it is not as forum type conversation) Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]