This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
anyone else think the main picture could be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about doing a 'battle article' about this day of madness. Yet the phrase re-directs here. Is there anyway to overcome this so a stand-alone article on this day's events can be done? BTW, does anyone think that staring it is a good idea? I did one on Adlertag (Eagle Day) which is currently at GA. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This is complete and utter nonsense, and amounts to an extraordinary claim, and as such requires a lot more than a single footnote to insert into this article. Please provide some corroborating sources. Damwiki1 ( talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
♠"Defiants equipped 13 NF squadrons." AFAIK, the threat from night bombing in the Battle was negligible. Certainly, the Defiant was useless in daytime ops. Moreover, AFAIK, a catseye Defiant was ineffectual as a NF anyhow. A radar-equipped Blenheim, less so (if too slow).
♠"The Battle squadrons were light bombers and required for tactical purposes if an invasion took place" I daresay, if there was an invasion, other aircraft could have been spared. Blenheims, for instance.
♠"second line duties, including training thousands of aerial gunners." For the duration, yes. I suggest other options were available later. What was required was an immediate response to what appeared to be impending doom.
♠Total production figures suggest somewhat less than 3000 total in summer '40; correction is apt, if the number available at the time is available.
♠"It might amaze some people to know" Really? Have anyone in mind? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, you do not seem to understand that when exceptional claims are made that exceptional sources are required to substantiate it, and it not the task of other editors to refute it: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
We all agree that it is complete nonsense, yet a day later it still remains in an article about one of the most important battles of modern history. If I stated in an article about arithmetic that 2+2 = 3, it would be removed immediately even if I had a reference, because it would be an "exceptional claim", yet the above paragraph which is complete fiction is allowed to remain. This is an insult to the integrity of every wikipedian and to wikipedia itself. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There are still serious problems with the existing paragraph: There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.[56] I haven't read a single account of the battle where it was suggested that the Battles and Defiants be scrapped. Again this is a pretty amazing suggestion that is simply not part of historical record, probably because it would have dealt a death blow to the RAF flight training program, not to mention the lack of said Spitfires and the fact that something like 90% of BP Defiants were yet to be built. Unless someone can dig up information suggesting that it was ever considered, then the whole paragraph should be struck. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The existing Defiant paragraph has been challenged above and was removed by Damwiki1 but reverted as no consensus by Bzuk. Dont really want to see an edit war on this can you all come to some sort of agreement, should the qouted paragraph be removed (or changed or kept). Please dont alter or delete the paragraph without this section coming to a conclusion I dont really want to protect the article, Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
yet somehow reappeared in the article. It really is time to remove this patent nonsense. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There are abundant sources available regarding the BofB and the paragraph in question is not supported by these. The idea that somehow, scrapping Battles and Defiants would magically result in more Hurricanes and Spitfires is simple nonsense. Damwiki1 ( talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Since there appears to be a difference of opinion on essentially a "content" issue, one of the first things to do is to try an seek consensus from the body of editors who have an interest in this article. Rather than canvassing, I have set up a question to elicit responses and ask for "a show of hands", bearing in mind that consensus is not reached by merely a numerical count but by the establishment of a position that ALL parties can accept and adhere to, as a definitive conclusion. FWiW, it does require acquiesence that there is no other solution.
1 Comment While researching and bringing the Rolls-Royce Merlin article up to FA standard I did not ever read that airframes were kept waiting for engines although the production effort was always 'flat out'. Fitting a used engine to a new airframe does not make sense at all, the managers would simply not have allowed it. The answer might be found in Winston Churchill's memoirs as he recorded everything, I have an incomplete set of six books, the crucial one covering this time period is missing unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2 Comment We need to see the supporting reference. The paragraph merely states that there was some criticism of the decision. Despite the fact that this criticism was ill founded it still may have existed. If it was criticism after the end of the battle based on what seems to be a rather poor suggestion it is not really notable enough for inclusion. If it was criticism during the battle it is still not particularly notable or relevant unless it had some effect on events of the time.
I think it is up to those relying on the cited reference to quote from the reference to prove their point and justify inclusion of the paragraph. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The image of Douglas Bader was removed because, according to Snowmanradio " image does not have obvious fair use on this page, so removed": Bader is mentioned in the text as the instigator and pioneer of the "Big Wing" tactics - the image correlates directly with this - and he was, overall, one of F/C's most notable pilots of the time, regardless of the controversy he caused. The image itself is a small reproduction from an encyclopaedia and one which is already in the public arena. To remove it without discussion is a little OT. Minorhistorian ( talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to me starting an article on the above to go alongside Adlertag and the Battle of Britain Day? Dapi89 ( talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
the inclusion of the fact tag was at the end of a quote that had no source after it. A direct quote as it is should be sourced. Cheers 82.8.192.142 ( talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"crush the RAF, which was essential for a successful invasion of Britain." Besides "crush" being a bit POV, calling it "essential" is seriously in question. For landings to succeed, it only needed local air superiority. Once forces were ashore, airpower's impact drastically shrank, as Allied experience against the Germans in Italy demonstrates. That being true, I took it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I know a lot of hard work has gone into this article, but I wandered over to it to learn a little about the Battle of Britain and all I've found is a bunch of analysis and little story. It really reads like something written for World War II buffs and less for someone looking for a starting point (which is what an encyclopedia article ought to be). I'm not suggesting it be dumb-downed, but it could certainly be a lot more accessible. Paxsimius ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
On German TV, English football matches such as Chelsea vs. Manchester are often labeled "Battle of Britain". Is this just sports journalists' stupidity, or do Englishmen use this lable too? If so, it would be worth to mention somewhere in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.61.231 ( talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
In England it's usually only England vs Germany national teams in the World Cup or European Cup that cause some tabloid newspapers to make World War II metaphors, but it's generally considered pretty crass when they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.237.12 ( talk) 03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The Hardest Day, Adlertag and the BoB Day have been covered now but I think there is still some mileage in producing articles that deal with specific days of combat. The Greatest Day I think should be in, but also it might be a good idea to write one on the Channel battles. The Germans and British treated it as a phase of the battle, so I wonder whether a separate article could be produced on that; The Kanal Kampf (it was a German operation); Air battles over the Channel etc etc. Dapi89 ( talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Towards the end of the section entitled 'Raids on British Cities', it says that 'October (1940) is regarded as the month regular bombing of Britain ended'. This looks incorrect to me, as The Blitz continued until May 1941, not just until October 1940. B1carbman ( talk) 13:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning erroneous foreign names for the battle? In Polish it's called "Bitwa o Anglię", "the battle for England". Does anyone know any other similar misunderstandings in foreign languages? Malick78 ( talk) 10:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The followinig is unclear
Does "as described above" refer to the accidental minor raids on the edges of London, or some major raid that was not properly described? If the former, then this is interesting, as the Berlin raids essentially came before the London raids, and that should be stated explicitly. It would have been a clever British tactic to draw the enemy to London and away from the airfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.90.2 ( talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference list is quite long, a big part of it consisting of references to several pages of the same works. I would like to consolidate each work’s references with the Template:Rp.
I also see no advantage to the new format. Seeing the work and page number in one click is more convenient than having a reference number with the page, which then links to the cited work. It also interrupts the main text less. ( Hohum @) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the photos is described as being of an RAF pilot's grave but, if you look closely, the rank on the headstone is that of an Aircraftsman which was not a pilots rank - an Aircraftsman would have been a mechanic or a gun technician, or whatever but NOT a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.148.229 ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo of Hermann Göring is pre 1933 (e.g. no Hindenberg Cross on his ribbon bar - awarded 1934 and no gold party badge) and shows him in a Nazi Party uniform. Would a more contempry one dressed as a Field/Reich Marshall be more approriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helensq ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The infobox clearly describes the result of the BoB as a 'decisive British victory', giving many sources to support that fact. That is the terminology we should use throughout the article. Personal views of editors are not relevant
This section seems rather muddled and contains many extraneous facts. Could we tidy it up a but so that it discusses the aftermath of the BOB rather than, say fighter losses. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph, under discussion, is examining the claim that the RN could have defeated a German seaborne invasion of the UK in Sept 1940. The ultimate fate of Crete is not relevant to the BofB article and a potential German invasion since German airborne forces were insignificant compared to the British and Commonwealth forces defending Britain and even if the RAF aircraft lost air superiority over Southern England, enough would survive to still contest transport aircraft and provide some support for the RN operating in the channel. Only a seaborne invasion could conquer Britain and the ability of the RN to totally defeat the attempted seaborne invasion of Crete despite overwhelming and undisputed Luftwaffe airpower is a clear example of what the RN could achieve. A convoy which has been intercepted by superior naval forces, partially destroyed, dispersed and prevented from landing a single soldier has been "totally defeated". The RAF victory during the BofB "prevented" a German invasion, but did not "defeat" a landing attempt. I am sure you see the distinction between prevention and defeat. Damwiki1 ( talk) 06:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What has all this got to do with the BoB? The point about the result of the BoB is that it clearly made an invasion impossible. Whether an invasion could have succeeded if the result had been different is not that relevant.
Had the Germans achieved complete air superiority over the south of England then Britain would have remained under the threat of invasion and could have been subject to constant attacks from the air. The desire to fight on would have weakened and there could easily have been some form of political settlement. Even a non-aggression agreement would have totally changed the course of the war. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started to remove excessive personal editorialising about the RN.
I do not think anyone disputes the vital role the RN played in defending Britain in WWII but an article on the BoB is not the place to discuss this. The aftermath of the BoB was that Germany failed to achieve air superiority and thus, with the air, sea, and land defences all still in place, an invasion was impossible. The BoB was an air battle which Britain won, there was no naval battle. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Martin I don`t agree with you deleting that section about the RN. The Battle Of Britain was primarily an air battle but I`m sick to the back teeth of people repeating the mantra that it was the RAF which saved this country from invasion. The pilots were undoubtedly brave (though Bomber Command`s pilots were statistically in more danger of death, particularly in 1940) and helped ensure that the invasion was never even attempted [though many informed observers don`t think it was ever seriously contemplated by the Germans anyway] but the accepted position of those with an in depth knowledge is that the RN (and the English Channel) were the real reasons that Sea Lion never took place. I don`t think you can divorce the battle from the events surrounding it [i.e. that it was about stopping the German invasion] and if that section helps educate some of those who perpetuate the myth, that the Germans were all set to invade till the RAF stopped them, then that can only be a good thing. I`d replace it but I can`t be bothered to get into a reversion battle, so hopefully someone else will do it ! -- JustinSmith ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Have added some info on the Kanalkampf period, perhaps haven't emphasised enough that the RN and Air Command were demanding protection that Dowding didn't have available, over his objections and his attempts to husband resources for the coming air attacks. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The use of 12 references for "Decisive British Victory" is an absolute nonsense: yes there has been contention, but mainly by people who have left or been booted off Wikipedia. The perceived need to need to bolster this statement with 12 references can equally be claimed by naysayers to be overkill, and it simply looks ridiculous: Read Wikipedia:Citation overkill: "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.
Citation overkill clutters pages, making them unreadable. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read: unreadable articles do not give our readers any material worth verifying. It is also important for an article to be verifiable: Without citations, how do we know that the material isn't just made up? A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter."
BTW, one source "Addison Crang The Burning Blue" is a waste of time with no date or page number, showing that people have simply thrown references at the perceived problem. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Quoting Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe: Terraine states the outcome as "decisive", Kreipe describes it as a strategic failure and turning point in the Second World War. Kreipe also states the "German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses that could never be made good throughout the course of the war". Quoting Dr Klee "The invasion and subjugation of Britain was made to depend on that battle, and its outcome therefore materially influenced the further course and fate of the war as a whole".Terraine 1985, p. 219.
"Fighter Command's victory was decisive. Not only had it survived, it ended the battle stronger than it had ever been. On 6 July its operational strength stood at 1,259 pilots. On 2 November, the figure was 1,796, an increase of over 40%. It had also seriously mauled its assailant. In a lecture held in Berlin on 2 February 1944, the intelligence officer of KG 2, Hauptmann Otto Bechle, showed that from August to December 1940 German fighter strength declined by 30% and bomber strength by 25%." Bungay p. 368
"The Battle was one of the great turning points in the Second World War—a defensive victory which saved the Island base and so, once Russia and the United States became involved, made future offensive victories possible." Hough and Richards 2007, p. xv.
Quotes AJP Taylor: "a true air war, even if on a small scale and had decisive strategic results". The Burning Blue, Overy 2001, Addison & Crang, p. 267
"As it was, the pragmatism of Dowding and his Fighter Command staff, the self-sacrifice of their pilots and the innovation of radar inflicted on Nazi Germany its first defeat. The legacy of that defeat would be long delayed in its effects; but the survival of an independent Britain which it assured was the event that most certainly determined the downfall of Hitler's Germany." Keegan 1997, p. 81.
"Given the ambiguous results of subsequent air campaigns against Germany, Japan, North Korea, and North Vietnam, it is probably fair to say that the Battle of Britain was the single most decisive air campaign in history." Buell 2002, p. 83.
"A decisive battle has been defined as one in which a 'contrary event would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent stages'. By this reckoning, the Battle of Britain was certainly decisive." AJP Taylor 1974, p. 67.
Bungay quoting Drew Middleton in The Sky Suspended: In 1945 the Soviets asked Gerd von Rundstedt which battle of the war he considered to be most decisive. Expecting him to say "Stalingrad", he said "The Battle of Britain". The Soviets left immediately." Bungay 2000, p. 386.
Noether of the two sources say that 1st RCAF was in effect a soverign unit, this looks like Or and Syn. I will mmark as CN untill a source can be found that says it wsa in effect a soversign unit. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Another R.C.A.F. officer, S/L F. M. Gobeil, for some weeks after the outbreak of war, commanded 242 Squadron. In October 1939 this unit was named the 242 (Canadian) Squadron and under the leadership of the legless Englishman, S/L Douglas Bader, D.S.O., D.F.C., did amazingly good work in the early months of the war. 242 was made up of a few of the numerous Canadians who, spurred on by their desire to fly and unable to find a place in the small peacetime air ‘force of their own country, were accepted for service by the R.A.F. before the outbreak of war. Thus, while for a time 242 Squadron may have been All- Canadian and its designation as a Canadian squadron was a graceful tribute by the R.A.F. to its personnel from the Dominion, it was not an R.C.A.F. unit nor were its personnel members of the Royal Canadian Air Force... ...It was logical that the first Canadian squadron to go overseas as a unit should be an army co-operation squadron designed to work in close contact with the Canadian Army. Many wondered at the time why a fighter unit had not been selected, since it was in the fighter squadrons of the last war that Canadians so distinguished themselves and men like Barker, Bishop and Collishaw achieved lasting fame. 110, as a representative of the auxiliary, or “Saturday afternoon” squadrons, went overseas filled with anticipation of early action and imbued with enthusiasm at the prospects of a good scrap. But this was not to be and for many weary months they continued training on their sturdy Lysanders, while their more fortunate fellow Canadians serving in R.A.F. units saw considerable action with the Advanced Air Striking Force in France. One of the original officers of 110 Squadron who went through month after month of the depressing monotony of training, while later arrivals in England were going into action, has this to say of the weary grind: Army co-operation training required a thorough knowledge of army organization-one of the duller subjects even to army personneland training in army tactics, at a time when we knew them to be obsolete in the light of newer methods employed by the enemy. This monotonous routine took place when the Battle of Britain was at its height; when the enemy was being fought and bested by our friends in fighters. To add insult to injury we saw R.A.F. army cooperation pilots transferred to fighter squadrons and join the battle in the air, while we continued our fight by locating and reporting six figure pinpoints of a hay-rick or a cross-roads; or sat in class rooms memorizing the number of three-ton lorries in an army engineer company. Our life was not the happiest and the only thing that kept us going was the hope that some kind soul might recognize our “sterling qualities”, take pity on us, and in some way get us into the fight. Four months after the landing of 110 Squadron two other units arrived. They were 11 2 Auxiliary (Army Cooperation) Squadron, of Winnipeg, and No. I Fighter) Squadron, a Permanent Force unit which also included auxiliary personnel from 115 (Fighter) Squadron of Montreal. No. I Fighter was under the command of Squadron Leader E. A. McNab, while the commanding officer of I12 Squadron was Squadron Leader W. F. Hanna. The arrival of these two squadrons practically coincided with the fall of the Low Countries and France, as the advance party arrived on May 29th and the main party on June 21st.( [7] )" Note the distiction of RAF 242 Squadron and RCAF squadrons and units and the fact that No.1 RCAF squadron was a permanent force unit of the RCAF. No.1 RCAF squadron was renamed 401 squadron by agreement between the RCAF and RAF to avoid confusion between RCAF and RAF units. Damwiki1 ( talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The first 100 Polish pilots that arrived in England, were assigned to a number of RAF squadrons, so the statement above, actually refers to the 16 squadrons that had Polish aviators. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC). BTW, even when No. 302 and No. 303 RAF squadrons were formed, they still operated under RAF Command and Control structure, even to the extent of having English-speaking RAF officers in place, with their Polish counterparts essentially acting as "shadows". FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
CSIS is searching for you as I write this...:) However, the facts are very plain; No.1 squadron RCAF was the only non-UK squadron that could have been ordered withdrawn from the battle by its' government and as such Canada deserves mention as a separate nation. Whether other nations should be mentioned is another issue, but Canada was an independent country in 1940, and it supplied an RCAF fighter squadron to the battle. Other nations have had forces under UK operational control, and have received national recognition in similar articles, so clearly this is not a disqualification. However it is an absurd idea that Canada would have to set up an alternate, but parallel, command structure to RAF FC, to gain separate national recognition. Damwiki1 ( talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ansell pp. *712–14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ansell pp. 712–14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
anyone else think the main picture could be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about doing a 'battle article' about this day of madness. Yet the phrase re-directs here. Is there anyway to overcome this so a stand-alone article on this day's events can be done? BTW, does anyone think that staring it is a good idea? I did one on Adlertag (Eagle Day) which is currently at GA. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This is complete and utter nonsense, and amounts to an extraordinary claim, and as such requires a lot more than a single footnote to insert into this article. Please provide some corroborating sources. Damwiki1 ( talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
♠"Defiants equipped 13 NF squadrons." AFAIK, the threat from night bombing in the Battle was negligible. Certainly, the Defiant was useless in daytime ops. Moreover, AFAIK, a catseye Defiant was ineffectual as a NF anyhow. A radar-equipped Blenheim, less so (if too slow).
♠"The Battle squadrons were light bombers and required for tactical purposes if an invasion took place" I daresay, if there was an invasion, other aircraft could have been spared. Blenheims, for instance.
♠"second line duties, including training thousands of aerial gunners." For the duration, yes. I suggest other options were available later. What was required was an immediate response to what appeared to be impending doom.
♠Total production figures suggest somewhat less than 3000 total in summer '40; correction is apt, if the number available at the time is available.
♠"It might amaze some people to know" Really? Have anyone in mind? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, you do not seem to understand that when exceptional claims are made that exceptional sources are required to substantiate it, and it not the task of other editors to refute it: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
We all agree that it is complete nonsense, yet a day later it still remains in an article about one of the most important battles of modern history. If I stated in an article about arithmetic that 2+2 = 3, it would be removed immediately even if I had a reference, because it would be an "exceptional claim", yet the above paragraph which is complete fiction is allowed to remain. This is an insult to the integrity of every wikipedian and to wikipedia itself. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There are still serious problems with the existing paragraph: There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.[56] I haven't read a single account of the battle where it was suggested that the Battles and Defiants be scrapped. Again this is a pretty amazing suggestion that is simply not part of historical record, probably because it would have dealt a death blow to the RAF flight training program, not to mention the lack of said Spitfires and the fact that something like 90% of BP Defiants were yet to be built. Unless someone can dig up information suggesting that it was ever considered, then the whole paragraph should be struck. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The existing Defiant paragraph has been challenged above and was removed by Damwiki1 but reverted as no consensus by Bzuk. Dont really want to see an edit war on this can you all come to some sort of agreement, should the qouted paragraph be removed (or changed or kept). Please dont alter or delete the paragraph without this section coming to a conclusion I dont really want to protect the article, Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
yet somehow reappeared in the article. It really is time to remove this patent nonsense. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There are abundant sources available regarding the BofB and the paragraph in question is not supported by these. The idea that somehow, scrapping Battles and Defiants would magically result in more Hurricanes and Spitfires is simple nonsense. Damwiki1 ( talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Since there appears to be a difference of opinion on essentially a "content" issue, one of the first things to do is to try an seek consensus from the body of editors who have an interest in this article. Rather than canvassing, I have set up a question to elicit responses and ask for "a show of hands", bearing in mind that consensus is not reached by merely a numerical count but by the establishment of a position that ALL parties can accept and adhere to, as a definitive conclusion. FWiW, it does require acquiesence that there is no other solution.
1 Comment While researching and bringing the Rolls-Royce Merlin article up to FA standard I did not ever read that airframes were kept waiting for engines although the production effort was always 'flat out'. Fitting a used engine to a new airframe does not make sense at all, the managers would simply not have allowed it. The answer might be found in Winston Churchill's memoirs as he recorded everything, I have an incomplete set of six books, the crucial one covering this time period is missing unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2 Comment We need to see the supporting reference. The paragraph merely states that there was some criticism of the decision. Despite the fact that this criticism was ill founded it still may have existed. If it was criticism after the end of the battle based on what seems to be a rather poor suggestion it is not really notable enough for inclusion. If it was criticism during the battle it is still not particularly notable or relevant unless it had some effect on events of the time.
I think it is up to those relying on the cited reference to quote from the reference to prove their point and justify inclusion of the paragraph. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The image of Douglas Bader was removed because, according to Snowmanradio " image does not have obvious fair use on this page, so removed": Bader is mentioned in the text as the instigator and pioneer of the "Big Wing" tactics - the image correlates directly with this - and he was, overall, one of F/C's most notable pilots of the time, regardless of the controversy he caused. The image itself is a small reproduction from an encyclopaedia and one which is already in the public arena. To remove it without discussion is a little OT. Minorhistorian ( talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to me starting an article on the above to go alongside Adlertag and the Battle of Britain Day? Dapi89 ( talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
the inclusion of the fact tag was at the end of a quote that had no source after it. A direct quote as it is should be sourced. Cheers 82.8.192.142 ( talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"crush the RAF, which was essential for a successful invasion of Britain." Besides "crush" being a bit POV, calling it "essential" is seriously in question. For landings to succeed, it only needed local air superiority. Once forces were ashore, airpower's impact drastically shrank, as Allied experience against the Germans in Italy demonstrates. That being true, I took it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I know a lot of hard work has gone into this article, but I wandered over to it to learn a little about the Battle of Britain and all I've found is a bunch of analysis and little story. It really reads like something written for World War II buffs and less for someone looking for a starting point (which is what an encyclopedia article ought to be). I'm not suggesting it be dumb-downed, but it could certainly be a lot more accessible. Paxsimius ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
On German TV, English football matches such as Chelsea vs. Manchester are often labeled "Battle of Britain". Is this just sports journalists' stupidity, or do Englishmen use this lable too? If so, it would be worth to mention somewhere in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.61.231 ( talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
In England it's usually only England vs Germany national teams in the World Cup or European Cup that cause some tabloid newspapers to make World War II metaphors, but it's generally considered pretty crass when they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.237.12 ( talk) 03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The Hardest Day, Adlertag and the BoB Day have been covered now but I think there is still some mileage in producing articles that deal with specific days of combat. The Greatest Day I think should be in, but also it might be a good idea to write one on the Channel battles. The Germans and British treated it as a phase of the battle, so I wonder whether a separate article could be produced on that; The Kanal Kampf (it was a German operation); Air battles over the Channel etc etc. Dapi89 ( talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Towards the end of the section entitled 'Raids on British Cities', it says that 'October (1940) is regarded as the month regular bombing of Britain ended'. This looks incorrect to me, as The Blitz continued until May 1941, not just until October 1940. B1carbman ( talk) 13:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning erroneous foreign names for the battle? In Polish it's called "Bitwa o Anglię", "the battle for England". Does anyone know any other similar misunderstandings in foreign languages? Malick78 ( talk) 10:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The followinig is unclear
Does "as described above" refer to the accidental minor raids on the edges of London, or some major raid that was not properly described? If the former, then this is interesting, as the Berlin raids essentially came before the London raids, and that should be stated explicitly. It would have been a clever British tactic to draw the enemy to London and away from the airfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.90.2 ( talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference list is quite long, a big part of it consisting of references to several pages of the same works. I would like to consolidate each work’s references with the Template:Rp.
I also see no advantage to the new format. Seeing the work and page number in one click is more convenient than having a reference number with the page, which then links to the cited work. It also interrupts the main text less. ( Hohum @) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the photos is described as being of an RAF pilot's grave but, if you look closely, the rank on the headstone is that of an Aircraftsman which was not a pilots rank - an Aircraftsman would have been a mechanic or a gun technician, or whatever but NOT a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.148.229 ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo of Hermann Göring is pre 1933 (e.g. no Hindenberg Cross on his ribbon bar - awarded 1934 and no gold party badge) and shows him in a Nazi Party uniform. Would a more contempry one dressed as a Field/Reich Marshall be more approriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helensq ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The infobox clearly describes the result of the BoB as a 'decisive British victory', giving many sources to support that fact. That is the terminology we should use throughout the article. Personal views of editors are not relevant
This section seems rather muddled and contains many extraneous facts. Could we tidy it up a but so that it discusses the aftermath of the BOB rather than, say fighter losses. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph, under discussion, is examining the claim that the RN could have defeated a German seaborne invasion of the UK in Sept 1940. The ultimate fate of Crete is not relevant to the BofB article and a potential German invasion since German airborne forces were insignificant compared to the British and Commonwealth forces defending Britain and even if the RAF aircraft lost air superiority over Southern England, enough would survive to still contest transport aircraft and provide some support for the RN operating in the channel. Only a seaborne invasion could conquer Britain and the ability of the RN to totally defeat the attempted seaborne invasion of Crete despite overwhelming and undisputed Luftwaffe airpower is a clear example of what the RN could achieve. A convoy which has been intercepted by superior naval forces, partially destroyed, dispersed and prevented from landing a single soldier has been "totally defeated". The RAF victory during the BofB "prevented" a German invasion, but did not "defeat" a landing attempt. I am sure you see the distinction between prevention and defeat. Damwiki1 ( talk) 06:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What has all this got to do with the BoB? The point about the result of the BoB is that it clearly made an invasion impossible. Whether an invasion could have succeeded if the result had been different is not that relevant.
Had the Germans achieved complete air superiority over the south of England then Britain would have remained under the threat of invasion and could have been subject to constant attacks from the air. The desire to fight on would have weakened and there could easily have been some form of political settlement. Even a non-aggression agreement would have totally changed the course of the war. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started to remove excessive personal editorialising about the RN.
I do not think anyone disputes the vital role the RN played in defending Britain in WWII but an article on the BoB is not the place to discuss this. The aftermath of the BoB was that Germany failed to achieve air superiority and thus, with the air, sea, and land defences all still in place, an invasion was impossible. The BoB was an air battle which Britain won, there was no naval battle. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Martin I don`t agree with you deleting that section about the RN. The Battle Of Britain was primarily an air battle but I`m sick to the back teeth of people repeating the mantra that it was the RAF which saved this country from invasion. The pilots were undoubtedly brave (though Bomber Command`s pilots were statistically in more danger of death, particularly in 1940) and helped ensure that the invasion was never even attempted [though many informed observers don`t think it was ever seriously contemplated by the Germans anyway] but the accepted position of those with an in depth knowledge is that the RN (and the English Channel) were the real reasons that Sea Lion never took place. I don`t think you can divorce the battle from the events surrounding it [i.e. that it was about stopping the German invasion] and if that section helps educate some of those who perpetuate the myth, that the Germans were all set to invade till the RAF stopped them, then that can only be a good thing. I`d replace it but I can`t be bothered to get into a reversion battle, so hopefully someone else will do it ! -- JustinSmith ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Have added some info on the Kanalkampf period, perhaps haven't emphasised enough that the RN and Air Command were demanding protection that Dowding didn't have available, over his objections and his attempts to husband resources for the coming air attacks. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The use of 12 references for "Decisive British Victory" is an absolute nonsense: yes there has been contention, but mainly by people who have left or been booted off Wikipedia. The perceived need to need to bolster this statement with 12 references can equally be claimed by naysayers to be overkill, and it simply looks ridiculous: Read Wikipedia:Citation overkill: "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.
Citation overkill clutters pages, making them unreadable. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read: unreadable articles do not give our readers any material worth verifying. It is also important for an article to be verifiable: Without citations, how do we know that the material isn't just made up? A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter."
BTW, one source "Addison Crang The Burning Blue" is a waste of time with no date or page number, showing that people have simply thrown references at the perceived problem. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Quoting Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe: Terraine states the outcome as "decisive", Kreipe describes it as a strategic failure and turning point in the Second World War. Kreipe also states the "German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses that could never be made good throughout the course of the war". Quoting Dr Klee "The invasion and subjugation of Britain was made to depend on that battle, and its outcome therefore materially influenced the further course and fate of the war as a whole".Terraine 1985, p. 219.
"Fighter Command's victory was decisive. Not only had it survived, it ended the battle stronger than it had ever been. On 6 July its operational strength stood at 1,259 pilots. On 2 November, the figure was 1,796, an increase of over 40%. It had also seriously mauled its assailant. In a lecture held in Berlin on 2 February 1944, the intelligence officer of KG 2, Hauptmann Otto Bechle, showed that from August to December 1940 German fighter strength declined by 30% and bomber strength by 25%." Bungay p. 368
"The Battle was one of the great turning points in the Second World War—a defensive victory which saved the Island base and so, once Russia and the United States became involved, made future offensive victories possible." Hough and Richards 2007, p. xv.
Quotes AJP Taylor: "a true air war, even if on a small scale and had decisive strategic results". The Burning Blue, Overy 2001, Addison & Crang, p. 267
"As it was, the pragmatism of Dowding and his Fighter Command staff, the self-sacrifice of their pilots and the innovation of radar inflicted on Nazi Germany its first defeat. The legacy of that defeat would be long delayed in its effects; but the survival of an independent Britain which it assured was the event that most certainly determined the downfall of Hitler's Germany." Keegan 1997, p. 81.
"Given the ambiguous results of subsequent air campaigns against Germany, Japan, North Korea, and North Vietnam, it is probably fair to say that the Battle of Britain was the single most decisive air campaign in history." Buell 2002, p. 83.
"A decisive battle has been defined as one in which a 'contrary event would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent stages'. By this reckoning, the Battle of Britain was certainly decisive." AJP Taylor 1974, p. 67.
Bungay quoting Drew Middleton in The Sky Suspended: In 1945 the Soviets asked Gerd von Rundstedt which battle of the war he considered to be most decisive. Expecting him to say "Stalingrad", he said "The Battle of Britain". The Soviets left immediately." Bungay 2000, p. 386.
Noether of the two sources say that 1st RCAF was in effect a soverign unit, this looks like Or and Syn. I will mmark as CN untill a source can be found that says it wsa in effect a soversign unit. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Another R.C.A.F. officer, S/L F. M. Gobeil, for some weeks after the outbreak of war, commanded 242 Squadron. In October 1939 this unit was named the 242 (Canadian) Squadron and under the leadership of the legless Englishman, S/L Douglas Bader, D.S.O., D.F.C., did amazingly good work in the early months of the war. 242 was made up of a few of the numerous Canadians who, spurred on by their desire to fly and unable to find a place in the small peacetime air ‘force of their own country, were accepted for service by the R.A.F. before the outbreak of war. Thus, while for a time 242 Squadron may have been All- Canadian and its designation as a Canadian squadron was a graceful tribute by the R.A.F. to its personnel from the Dominion, it was not an R.C.A.F. unit nor were its personnel members of the Royal Canadian Air Force... ...It was logical that the first Canadian squadron to go overseas as a unit should be an army co-operation squadron designed to work in close contact with the Canadian Army. Many wondered at the time why a fighter unit had not been selected, since it was in the fighter squadrons of the last war that Canadians so distinguished themselves and men like Barker, Bishop and Collishaw achieved lasting fame. 110, as a representative of the auxiliary, or “Saturday afternoon” squadrons, went overseas filled with anticipation of early action and imbued with enthusiasm at the prospects of a good scrap. But this was not to be and for many weary months they continued training on their sturdy Lysanders, while their more fortunate fellow Canadians serving in R.A.F. units saw considerable action with the Advanced Air Striking Force in France. One of the original officers of 110 Squadron who went through month after month of the depressing monotony of training, while later arrivals in England were going into action, has this to say of the weary grind: Army co-operation training required a thorough knowledge of army organization-one of the duller subjects even to army personneland training in army tactics, at a time when we knew them to be obsolete in the light of newer methods employed by the enemy. This monotonous routine took place when the Battle of Britain was at its height; when the enemy was being fought and bested by our friends in fighters. To add insult to injury we saw R.A.F. army cooperation pilots transferred to fighter squadrons and join the battle in the air, while we continued our fight by locating and reporting six figure pinpoints of a hay-rick or a cross-roads; or sat in class rooms memorizing the number of three-ton lorries in an army engineer company. Our life was not the happiest and the only thing that kept us going was the hope that some kind soul might recognize our “sterling qualities”, take pity on us, and in some way get us into the fight. Four months after the landing of 110 Squadron two other units arrived. They were 11 2 Auxiliary (Army Cooperation) Squadron, of Winnipeg, and No. I Fighter) Squadron, a Permanent Force unit which also included auxiliary personnel from 115 (Fighter) Squadron of Montreal. No. I Fighter was under the command of Squadron Leader E. A. McNab, while the commanding officer of I12 Squadron was Squadron Leader W. F. Hanna. The arrival of these two squadrons practically coincided with the fall of the Low Countries and France, as the advance party arrived on May 29th and the main party on June 21st.( [7] )" Note the distiction of RAF 242 Squadron and RCAF squadrons and units and the fact that No.1 RCAF squadron was a permanent force unit of the RCAF. No.1 RCAF squadron was renamed 401 squadron by agreement between the RCAF and RAF to avoid confusion between RCAF and RAF units. Damwiki1 ( talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The first 100 Polish pilots that arrived in England, were assigned to a number of RAF squadrons, so the statement above, actually refers to the 16 squadrons that had Polish aviators. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC). BTW, even when No. 302 and No. 303 RAF squadrons were formed, they still operated under RAF Command and Control structure, even to the extent of having English-speaking RAF officers in place, with their Polish counterparts essentially acting as "shadows". FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
CSIS is searching for you as I write this...:) However, the facts are very plain; No.1 squadron RCAF was the only non-UK squadron that could have been ordered withdrawn from the battle by its' government and as such Canada deserves mention as a separate nation. Whether other nations should be mentioned is another issue, but Canada was an independent country in 1940, and it supplied an RCAF fighter squadron to the battle. Other nations have had forces under UK operational control, and have received national recognition in similar articles, so clearly this is not a disqualification. However it is an absurd idea that Canada would have to set up an alternate, but parallel, command structure to RAF FC, to gain separate national recognition. Damwiki1 ( talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ansell pp. *712–14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ansell pp. 712–14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).