This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No. 303 Squadron RAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the main "Polish contribution to World War II" article, the polish 303 squadron accounted for 12% of the total kills in Battle of Britain.
"The 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero, General Tadeusz Kościuszko, achieved the highest number of kills (273) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on 1940-08-30: these 5% of pilots were responsible for a phenomenal 12% of total victories in the Battle"
But this article says 4.7% of total kills for the same Squadron with "only" 126 confirmed kills. So which article is correct?
Was the 303 a RAF squadron or not? The article seems to skirt round this issue. GraemeLeggett 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This question of Polish autonomy within the RAF is a grey area; While politically the Polish government in exile exerted its own chain of command on 'Free Polish' air force units, prior to the formation of 303 many Polish pilots had already served with existing RAF squadrons in 1940 under the administrative control of the RAF Volunteer Reserve. However it should be remembered that just with RCAF and RAAF squadrons, non RAF squadrons were essentially front line combat units under direct RAF strategic and tactical command, and as such were treated no differently to the traditional RAF units. Harryurz 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article on Zdzisław Krasnodębski needs some work, if anyone is available to clean up, get references and improve the article. Thanks! Leena ( talk) 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please look for materials concerning Polish pilots take downs of V1 machines (might be interesting). Boys from 303 were the only ones thats ware able to get near V1 (wing-to-wing) and take them out of course. [Greeting to all RAF from PL] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.242.141 ( talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
References
The introduction says "It is the RAF unit which scored the highest number of enemy kills during the Battle of Britain." but the body of the text says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one. According to historian John Alcorn, 44 victories are positively verified, which makes 303 Squadron the fourth best fighter squadron of the battle, after Squadron Nos. 603, 609 and 41, which all flew Spitfires.[3]. Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1. However, J. Alcorn was not able to attribute 30 aircraft shot down to any particular unit, and according to Jerzy Cynk and some other Polish historians, the real number of victories of 303 Squadron was in fact about 55–60." We need to somehow make the article consistent. Varsovian ( talk) 12:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll move this back to full page width so as to avoid tiny columns. I very much agree that the fame of 303 being 'number one' may now be a modern myth (odd how the Polish military tend to attract those: cavalry charging tanks etc). Perhaps there is the need for a subsection of the article dealing with this point? Either way, I suggest that the intro section is kept shorter. How about "303 was one of the best scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources listing it as the best." ? Varsovian ( talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This chart shows confirmed kills for 303 Squadron (left column) and all other allied squadrons (central column) as wall as real German losses (right column) - so positively verified confirmed kills - on each day of the battle when 303 Squadron was involved in combats:
http://www.konflikty.pl/photos/tabela_303.jpg
I have one question - what is the number of verified kills for 41, 609 and 603 squadron? Because Jacek Kutzner writes that 41 squadron was the most efficient after Polish squadron (126 confirmed kills) with only 57 confirmed kills. How many of these kills were positively verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
John Alcorn published a revised version of his article, 'Battle of Britain Top Guns Update', in Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, pp.24-29. In this version (p.28), 303 Squadron is the *third highest-scoring* Fighter Command squadron in the Battle of Britain (July 1 to 31 October 1940 -- dates given p.24), with 45 'credits' (up from 44 in the 1996 article). It is the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron. 609 Squadron (Spitfire) comes second with 51.5 credits and 603 Squadron (Spitfire) is top with 57.5 credits. (Table 3, p.28)
303 Squadron is the fourth-placed 'Bf109 killer' with 30 credits, following 501 Sqn (Hurricane) with 30.5, 41 Sqn (Spitfire) with 34 and 603 Sqn (Spitfire) with 47. (Table 4, p.28) Total Fighter Command claims were 2,480; but total verified German losses in air combat with RAF single-seat day fighters were 1,197, plus 34 whose loss cannot be assigned to an individual squadron. (p.27) The Germans actually lost 1,609 aircraft, but not all of them were lost in air combat and 37 were lost to other RAF fighters, mostly Blenheim IFs. (pp.27-28) 529 German aircraft were shot down by the 19 Spitfire squadrons, including 282 Bf109Es. 656 German aircraft were shot down by the 30 Hurricane squadrons, including 'about' 222 Bf109Es. The average Spitfire squadron killed 15 Bf109s, the average Hurricane squadron 7.5. (p.29) Evidently 303 Squadron killed four times as many 109s as the average Hurricane squadron, which is quite good, especially considering that the squadron only became operational at the end of August.
In Table 1, 'Summary of Results', p.27, 303 Sqn is assigned 121 claims to 45 confirmed credits, an accuracy of 37% (compared to 257 Sqn, top for accuracy at 69% and 111, 145 and 616 Sqns on 68%). 303 Sqn is assigned 16 losses and 17 'days engaged'. The kill-to-loss ratio appears to be 2.8 to 1, compared to 603 Sqn's 1.9 to 1. But then Spitfire XIV squadrons in Second TAF in 1944-5 had a kill-to-loss of about 20 to 1, so, y'know.
Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Removal of sources by user Varsovian[ [7]]+plus untrue interpretation of the source in his edit summary is quite disturbing.-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1." However, the Operations Record Book of the No.303 Squadron [11] clearly show that the squadron entered the battle on 30 August and flew their last combat mission of the battle on 11 October. This is slightly more than 17 days (although on two days in that period no combat missions appear to have been flown). Unfortunately though, this is clearly a primary source and so we need it to be confirmed by a secondary source before we can insert the dates into the article. However, I would suggest that it is good enough to justify removing the (currently unsourced) statement regarding 17 days. Agreed? The Operations Record Book also contains interesting data regarding losses. According to the records, only seven pilots were killed during the Battle of Britain. How does that equate to a kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1? And do we have any sources which support that 2.8:1 ratio? When I google, all I can find are links back to this article. If there isn't a reliable source, should the ratio be included?
Even worse, I notice that none of the three sources given in the introduction reliably state that "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit in the Battle of Britain." Olson & Cloud (a source which I have severe reservations about) say that " By the Battle of Britain's end, it was credited with downing more German air craft than any other squadron attached to the RAF." (this is discussed in the article) while Zaloga & Hook say "303 squadron became the highest scoring RAF squadron in the Battle of Britain". Unfortunately page 25 is one of the few pages of Gretzyngier & Matusiak which is not available online but searching shows that the word 'ratio' is not in the book and that page 26 of the book says “The first Polish squadron (No 303) in No 1 Group, during the course of one month, shot down more Germans than any British unit in the same period.”, which is an odd thing to say if on the previous page there is information that the squadron was the top scoring unit in the RAF for the entire battle. Given that we have no sources which support the “measured by kill ratio” statement, should it be included in the text? I suggest not. Varsovian ( talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they don't need to be online. But the three sources say the 303 was the best scoring squadron, period. Which sources says it wasn't the best? Unfortunately, we cannot assert a 'suggestion' - what we think is a suggestion isn't in keeping with WP:Verifiability and it is WP:OR - Chumchum7 ( talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding [12]: how does WP:REDFLAG apply to this? How does WP:OR apply to this? Alcorn's work is highly respected and is already covered in the article. 303's claimed and credited kills simply do not and can not reflect the actual number of kills. See for example this table [13] by a Polish historian: on 26 September 303 claimed 13 kills and were credited with that same number (a total of 34 kills were credited to all RAF squadrons that day); however, the Germans only lost 9 planes that day! If we are going to mention that 303 was credited with the highest number of kills at the time, we need to mention that the number of credited kills was inflated and that studies have shown that 303 was one of the top squadrons but probably not the top squadron. Could you perhaps explain what you mean by PPOV? And also detail what you see as the disagreement of the verifiability of sources? Varsovian ( talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on No. 303 Squadron RAF and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.— TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
Opinion:
WP:NPOV says WP:NPOV#Balance says None of the four quoted sources, Olson (Knopf), Gretzyngier (Osprey), Zaloga (Osprey), and Alcorn (Aeroplane Monthly), are academic publications; all are "popular history" publications. Accepting for the sake of argument that the first three are acceptably reliable sources, I see no reason to not consider Aeroplane Monthly to be equally reliable, especially since it has been widely used without objection in Wikipedia as a reliable source. WP:NPOV therefore clearly says that the alternate claim and its source advanced in this edit should be included in the article. To avoid a false impression, both conflicting claims either need to be mentioned in the lede or neither should be mentioned there. To put both into the lede will require an amount of text that, in my opinion, will give undue weight to the unit's performance in the BoB. My opinion is, therefore, that the unit's performance in the BoB should not be mentioned in the lede at all except to say that, "It was one of the best scoring squadrons during the Battle of Britain" (with nothing more; the appended refs should point to all four sources). Let me note in passing that the fact that two or three sources take one position while just one takes the other does not mean that the majority position is "mainstream" or somehow dominant over the minority, especially when none of the sources are academic. Finally, in light of the last discussions above, let me also note that sources say what they say. Analysis of what they say is
forbidden original research. An author asserting a non–online source is not required to produce a copy or extensively quote the text since, in part, either of those can be a copyright violation and since we are to
presume good faith. If another editor questions whether the source really says what it is claimed to say, then it is the questioning author's obligation to
presume good faith, find a copy, and check it.
WP:LIB can sometimes help with this. |
Transporterman, thanks so much for a stellar 3O contribution. Please stick around as we go through this. Aside from whether or not Alcorn can be used in the first place, which is an important point, are you satisfied that Alcorn isn't a lone source that contradicts mainstream opinion, and therefore a WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories issue? To reluctantly use an extreme precedent, we discount David Irving's verifiable views when introducing the Holocaust because of WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories, don't we? Or have I misunderstood the guidelines? I am sure there are better, less emotional precedents that I could use, this is just the first example that springs to mind. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Here is another cast iron verifiable source on the 303: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4935429/BNP-uses-Polish-Spitfire-in-anti-immigration-poster.html
It refers to the squadron as the 'most effective' in the Battle of Britain. This is an important phrase, different from best- perfoming or highest-scoring. After much research, I am satisfied this is mainstream thinking on the matter. Going back through the edit history of our article, it seems that Varsovian had an issue with the phrase 'highest scoring', because he said 303 didn't have the highest number of kills, but the best kill-to-loss ratio. In military history this is termed 'kill ratio' and is a measure of effectiveness rather than total achievment. So we altered something like 'highest scoring' to 'highest kill ratio', in fact to satisfy Varsovian's query. Now Varsovian doesn't like our use of 'kill ratio' on the perfectly legitimate grounds that no source actually uses this phrase, and we are imposing it on the subject. But it starts to give me the impression that we are straying away from mainstream thinking far too much. Every subject has its conventional wisdom and some minority counter-thesis, but I understand that WP does not use the minority view to dilute mainstream opinion at the start of an article. The minority view is included later, not in the opening paragraph. On grounds of verifiability and consensus, I would argue that 'most effective' is a better phrase for us to use than 'one of the best scoring'. It appears that 'most effective' could even be the common ground beteween Alcorn and the rest of the sources. Please refer to my replies to Transporterman's contributions above. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in... history
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. [1] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Olson and Cloud, to take one of the at least 4 sources that appear to represent the mainstream view, are endorsed by The Spectator, The Sunday Times and Newsweek.
Alcorn appears to fit the bill for the redflag. And it also appears that none of us has read Alcorn yet.
I don't agree or disagree with any of the sources. I'm working to guidelines.
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Varsovian, if you take a look at Replyentry's contribs, you'll see he or she is very new here. WP has policy on this - WP:Don't bite the newbies. The user may not have understood your post and may have expressed that in a rude way. Your response included this line: "Of course you can not mean that you are Polish and 303 were Polish and thus any comments which suggest that 303 was less wonderful than Poles say must be nonsense." You and I both know that you were being sarcastic here. Remember WP:Civility. Please also read the list of policy links I posted above, including WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I'm also giving you a friendly heads up about Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. In case you are are not aware of this, WP takes an extremely serious view of national and ethnic stereotyping, the attempt to out editors' national or ethnic background, and the attempt to use prejudice about national or ethnic background to allege editing bias. One is entitled to an opinion that all Poles cannot accept criticism or that all Poles will talk up their own history - but that opinion has absolutely no place in the Wikipedia editing process. Stick to WP guidelines, not personal feelings. Moreover, every country on the planet has myths about its own history, and it is not up to us to debunk these myths, as per WP:OR. As we continue this discussion, we should be referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than our own personal opinions about sources and editors. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok here is an important source [16]. Starting with page 93. Page 96 has the important quote "Squadron 303 became the highest scoring squadron of the entire Battle of Britain". So source directly contradicts some article text. The article at moment says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), No. 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one." The source above says (pg 95): "In postwar years it was found that both the Allies and the Germans exaggerated the numbers of adversary aircraft claimed as destroyed. However, the Polish numbers remained accurate" - and then it discusses why in more detail.
The highest scoring pilot in the Battle of Britain was a Czech pilot flying with the 303: [17]
Here is another source: [18] (page 31 bottom and it also addresses the accuracy issue on page 31 and 34).
And another good source is "A question of honor: the Kosciuszko Squadron" but that's not available online. Dr. Loosmark 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've recently tried to expand the article to include 303's combat involvement after the battle of britain, as they were engaged in most of the Fighter Command's endevours through 1941-44. Also expanded on the 1940 operations too, and tidied the grammar a little. Hope everone if okay with article thus far. Thanks Harryurz ( talk) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A horrible section to add because experience has shown that "Popular Culture" can mean that even a tiny, incidental mention of 303 Sqn can be construed as being important, according to the individual editor. For example, "As part of an advertising campaign designed to highlight its concerns about the numbers of foreign workers (including Polish migrants) in the United Kingdom, the British National Party used the distinctly British icon of a Spitfire to illustrate its idea of a Battle for Britain. Ironically, the Spitfire shown in its advertising was RF-D from 303 (Polish) Squadron. [1] It was the Spitfire with Donald Duck artwork of Polish ace Jan Zumbach, who during the Battle of Britain scored eight confirmed kills against Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters."
This is hardly important because a)It was accidental that Zumbach's 303 Sqn Spitfire was put on the poster. b) The accidental inclusion of Zumbach's Spitfire has no relevance to the history of the unit - clearly the BNP had no idea and more than likely couldn't care less that it made a mistake.
"No. 303 is mentioned in the song "Aces in Exile" from the album Coat of Arms by Swedish metal band Sabaton. Also mentioned in the song are No. 310 Squadron RAF and No. 401 Squadron RCAF, which were also manned by foreign pilots participating in the Battle of Britain." So a Swedish metal band mentions 303 Sqn? Is the song in Swedish, or can others listen in? How often and in what context is 303 Sqn "mentioned"?
"As part of the 'Bloody Foreigners' series Channel 4 also commissioned digital agency fish in a bottle to create an online game that allows players to relive some of the history of 303 squadron and its involvement in the Battle of Britain. [20] [21]" Reads like an advertisement for fish-in-a-bottle.
If the appearence of 303 sqn is incidental, or accidental, it is not relevant to this article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the BNP's ignorant use of a huge photo of a Spitfire in Jan Zumbach's markings as a backdrop, with the title 'Battle for Britain', when BNP leader Nick Griffin made an anti-immigration speech, was widely remarked on at the time. It was pointed out to Griffin and he tried, unconvincingly, to laugh it off. Along with Griffin's poor performance on the BBC's Question Time around then, it may have contributed to the party's disastrous loss of credibility and votes. The Spitfire in the picture was not in fact Zumbach's EN951, it was the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's preserved AB910, which at that time was painted with Zumbach's RF-D codes and 'Angry Duck' cartoon to commemorate the Polish ace. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
An image caption mentions "Left stairs down". Is that a literal translation of a Polish phrase, or the contemporary phrase used by the 303 or RAF? If not, the current name for the formation is "Echelon left". Lstor ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is Paskiewicz? He was the first to shoot down plane for 303 squadron. Ovsek ( talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Tadeusz Arentowicz to No. 303 Squadron RAF. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for chronicling the brave! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace303 ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Should be added to 303 pilots
Piotr’s final flight was on June 27, 1941. Pilots from 1 Polish Fighter Wing were ordered to fly over France in the morning as part of Circus 25 (Z.181). Their target supposed to be a steel factory in Lillie and the Poles were ordered to fly at 13 – 16,000 feet as top cover for 24 Blenheims. As the weather worsened, instead Poles were ordered to sweep the area of Le Touquet and Gravelines. The Polish formation was led by Wing Commander John Kent and Wing Commander Piotr Łaguna, both using aircraft from 303 Squadron: P8567 RF-D and P8331 RF-M respectively. 2A00:23C7:A31E:F301:2D3E:AEB5:BB71:4914 ( talk) 06:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot about how many kills the squadron got (including, quite reasonably, disagreements about the exact number), but there is nothing saying their losses. CrickedBack ( talk) 14:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Not even aviation related nor military affiliated. 72.214.215.25 ( talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I have translated the article into Russian, but still cannot find information on initial number of Polish pilots enlisted to RAF in 1940 or the flying force of #303 for that matter. Please advise. Basicowes ( talk) 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No. 303 Squadron RAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the main "Polish contribution to World War II" article, the polish 303 squadron accounted for 12% of the total kills in Battle of Britain.
"The 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero, General Tadeusz Kościuszko, achieved the highest number of kills (273) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on 1940-08-30: these 5% of pilots were responsible for a phenomenal 12% of total victories in the Battle"
But this article says 4.7% of total kills for the same Squadron with "only" 126 confirmed kills. So which article is correct?
Was the 303 a RAF squadron or not? The article seems to skirt round this issue. GraemeLeggett 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This question of Polish autonomy within the RAF is a grey area; While politically the Polish government in exile exerted its own chain of command on 'Free Polish' air force units, prior to the formation of 303 many Polish pilots had already served with existing RAF squadrons in 1940 under the administrative control of the RAF Volunteer Reserve. However it should be remembered that just with RCAF and RAAF squadrons, non RAF squadrons were essentially front line combat units under direct RAF strategic and tactical command, and as such were treated no differently to the traditional RAF units. Harryurz 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article on Zdzisław Krasnodębski needs some work, if anyone is available to clean up, get references and improve the article. Thanks! Leena ( talk) 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please look for materials concerning Polish pilots take downs of V1 machines (might be interesting). Boys from 303 were the only ones thats ware able to get near V1 (wing-to-wing) and take them out of course. [Greeting to all RAF from PL] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.242.141 ( talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
References
The introduction says "It is the RAF unit which scored the highest number of enemy kills during the Battle of Britain." but the body of the text says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one. According to historian John Alcorn, 44 victories are positively verified, which makes 303 Squadron the fourth best fighter squadron of the battle, after Squadron Nos. 603, 609 and 41, which all flew Spitfires.[3]. Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1. However, J. Alcorn was not able to attribute 30 aircraft shot down to any particular unit, and according to Jerzy Cynk and some other Polish historians, the real number of victories of 303 Squadron was in fact about 55–60." We need to somehow make the article consistent. Varsovian ( talk) 12:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll move this back to full page width so as to avoid tiny columns. I very much agree that the fame of 303 being 'number one' may now be a modern myth (odd how the Polish military tend to attract those: cavalry charging tanks etc). Perhaps there is the need for a subsection of the article dealing with this point? Either way, I suggest that the intro section is kept shorter. How about "303 was one of the best scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources listing it as the best." ? Varsovian ( talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This chart shows confirmed kills for 303 Squadron (left column) and all other allied squadrons (central column) as wall as real German losses (right column) - so positively verified confirmed kills - on each day of the battle when 303 Squadron was involved in combats:
http://www.konflikty.pl/photos/tabela_303.jpg
I have one question - what is the number of verified kills for 41, 609 and 603 squadron? Because Jacek Kutzner writes that 41 squadron was the most efficient after Polish squadron (126 confirmed kills) with only 57 confirmed kills. How many of these kills were positively verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter558 ( talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
John Alcorn published a revised version of his article, 'Battle of Britain Top Guns Update', in Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, pp.24-29. In this version (p.28), 303 Squadron is the *third highest-scoring* Fighter Command squadron in the Battle of Britain (July 1 to 31 October 1940 -- dates given p.24), with 45 'credits' (up from 44 in the 1996 article). It is the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron. 609 Squadron (Spitfire) comes second with 51.5 credits and 603 Squadron (Spitfire) is top with 57.5 credits. (Table 3, p.28)
303 Squadron is the fourth-placed 'Bf109 killer' with 30 credits, following 501 Sqn (Hurricane) with 30.5, 41 Sqn (Spitfire) with 34 and 603 Sqn (Spitfire) with 47. (Table 4, p.28) Total Fighter Command claims were 2,480; but total verified German losses in air combat with RAF single-seat day fighters were 1,197, plus 34 whose loss cannot be assigned to an individual squadron. (p.27) The Germans actually lost 1,609 aircraft, but not all of them were lost in air combat and 37 were lost to other RAF fighters, mostly Blenheim IFs. (pp.27-28) 529 German aircraft were shot down by the 19 Spitfire squadrons, including 282 Bf109Es. 656 German aircraft were shot down by the 30 Hurricane squadrons, including 'about' 222 Bf109Es. The average Spitfire squadron killed 15 Bf109s, the average Hurricane squadron 7.5. (p.29) Evidently 303 Squadron killed four times as many 109s as the average Hurricane squadron, which is quite good, especially considering that the squadron only became operational at the end of August.
In Table 1, 'Summary of Results', p.27, 303 Sqn is assigned 121 claims to 45 confirmed credits, an accuracy of 37% (compared to 257 Sqn, top for accuracy at 69% and 111, 145 and 616 Sqns on 68%). 303 Sqn is assigned 16 losses and 17 'days engaged'. The kill-to-loss ratio appears to be 2.8 to 1, compared to 603 Sqn's 1.9 to 1. But then Spitfire XIV squadrons in Second TAF in 1944-5 had a kill-to-loss of about 20 to 1, so, y'know.
Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Removal of sources by user Varsovian[ [7]]+plus untrue interpretation of the source in his edit summary is quite disturbing.-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1." However, the Operations Record Book of the No.303 Squadron [11] clearly show that the squadron entered the battle on 30 August and flew their last combat mission of the battle on 11 October. This is slightly more than 17 days (although on two days in that period no combat missions appear to have been flown). Unfortunately though, this is clearly a primary source and so we need it to be confirmed by a secondary source before we can insert the dates into the article. However, I would suggest that it is good enough to justify removing the (currently unsourced) statement regarding 17 days. Agreed? The Operations Record Book also contains interesting data regarding losses. According to the records, only seven pilots were killed during the Battle of Britain. How does that equate to a kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1? And do we have any sources which support that 2.8:1 ratio? When I google, all I can find are links back to this article. If there isn't a reliable source, should the ratio be included?
Even worse, I notice that none of the three sources given in the introduction reliably state that "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit in the Battle of Britain." Olson & Cloud (a source which I have severe reservations about) say that " By the Battle of Britain's end, it was credited with downing more German air craft than any other squadron attached to the RAF." (this is discussed in the article) while Zaloga & Hook say "303 squadron became the highest scoring RAF squadron in the Battle of Britain". Unfortunately page 25 is one of the few pages of Gretzyngier & Matusiak which is not available online but searching shows that the word 'ratio' is not in the book and that page 26 of the book says “The first Polish squadron (No 303) in No 1 Group, during the course of one month, shot down more Germans than any British unit in the same period.”, which is an odd thing to say if on the previous page there is information that the squadron was the top scoring unit in the RAF for the entire battle. Given that we have no sources which support the “measured by kill ratio” statement, should it be included in the text? I suggest not. Varsovian ( talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they don't need to be online. But the three sources say the 303 was the best scoring squadron, period. Which sources says it wasn't the best? Unfortunately, we cannot assert a 'suggestion' - what we think is a suggestion isn't in keeping with WP:Verifiability and it is WP:OR - Chumchum7 ( talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding [12]: how does WP:REDFLAG apply to this? How does WP:OR apply to this? Alcorn's work is highly respected and is already covered in the article. 303's claimed and credited kills simply do not and can not reflect the actual number of kills. See for example this table [13] by a Polish historian: on 26 September 303 claimed 13 kills and were credited with that same number (a total of 34 kills were credited to all RAF squadrons that day); however, the Germans only lost 9 planes that day! If we are going to mention that 303 was credited with the highest number of kills at the time, we need to mention that the number of credited kills was inflated and that studies have shown that 303 was one of the top squadrons but probably not the top squadron. Could you perhaps explain what you mean by PPOV? And also detail what you see as the disagreement of the verifiability of sources? Varsovian ( talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on No. 303 Squadron RAF and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.— TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
Opinion:
WP:NPOV says WP:NPOV#Balance says None of the four quoted sources, Olson (Knopf), Gretzyngier (Osprey), Zaloga (Osprey), and Alcorn (Aeroplane Monthly), are academic publications; all are "popular history" publications. Accepting for the sake of argument that the first three are acceptably reliable sources, I see no reason to not consider Aeroplane Monthly to be equally reliable, especially since it has been widely used without objection in Wikipedia as a reliable source. WP:NPOV therefore clearly says that the alternate claim and its source advanced in this edit should be included in the article. To avoid a false impression, both conflicting claims either need to be mentioned in the lede or neither should be mentioned there. To put both into the lede will require an amount of text that, in my opinion, will give undue weight to the unit's performance in the BoB. My opinion is, therefore, that the unit's performance in the BoB should not be mentioned in the lede at all except to say that, "It was one of the best scoring squadrons during the Battle of Britain" (with nothing more; the appended refs should point to all four sources). Let me note in passing that the fact that two or three sources take one position while just one takes the other does not mean that the majority position is "mainstream" or somehow dominant over the minority, especially when none of the sources are academic. Finally, in light of the last discussions above, let me also note that sources say what they say. Analysis of what they say is
forbidden original research. An author asserting a non–online source is not required to produce a copy or extensively quote the text since, in part, either of those can be a copyright violation and since we are to
presume good faith. If another editor questions whether the source really says what it is claimed to say, then it is the questioning author's obligation to
presume good faith, find a copy, and check it.
WP:LIB can sometimes help with this. |
Transporterman, thanks so much for a stellar 3O contribution. Please stick around as we go through this. Aside from whether or not Alcorn can be used in the first place, which is an important point, are you satisfied that Alcorn isn't a lone source that contradicts mainstream opinion, and therefore a WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories issue? To reluctantly use an extreme precedent, we discount David Irving's verifiable views when introducing the Holocaust because of WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories, don't we? Or have I misunderstood the guidelines? I am sure there are better, less emotional precedents that I could use, this is just the first example that springs to mind. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Here is another cast iron verifiable source on the 303: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4935429/BNP-uses-Polish-Spitfire-in-anti-immigration-poster.html
It refers to the squadron as the 'most effective' in the Battle of Britain. This is an important phrase, different from best- perfoming or highest-scoring. After much research, I am satisfied this is mainstream thinking on the matter. Going back through the edit history of our article, it seems that Varsovian had an issue with the phrase 'highest scoring', because he said 303 didn't have the highest number of kills, but the best kill-to-loss ratio. In military history this is termed 'kill ratio' and is a measure of effectiveness rather than total achievment. So we altered something like 'highest scoring' to 'highest kill ratio', in fact to satisfy Varsovian's query. Now Varsovian doesn't like our use of 'kill ratio' on the perfectly legitimate grounds that no source actually uses this phrase, and we are imposing it on the subject. But it starts to give me the impression that we are straying away from mainstream thinking far too much. Every subject has its conventional wisdom and some minority counter-thesis, but I understand that WP does not use the minority view to dilute mainstream opinion at the start of an article. The minority view is included later, not in the opening paragraph. On grounds of verifiability and consensus, I would argue that 'most effective' is a better phrase for us to use than 'one of the best scoring'. It appears that 'most effective' could even be the common ground beteween Alcorn and the rest of the sources. Please refer to my replies to Transporterman's contributions above. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in... history
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. [1] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Olson and Cloud, to take one of the at least 4 sources that appear to represent the mainstream view, are endorsed by The Spectator, The Sunday Times and Newsweek.
Alcorn appears to fit the bill for the redflag. And it also appears that none of us has read Alcorn yet.
I don't agree or disagree with any of the sources. I'm working to guidelines.
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Varsovian, if you take a look at Replyentry's contribs, you'll see he or she is very new here. WP has policy on this - WP:Don't bite the newbies. The user may not have understood your post and may have expressed that in a rude way. Your response included this line: "Of course you can not mean that you are Polish and 303 were Polish and thus any comments which suggest that 303 was less wonderful than Poles say must be nonsense." You and I both know that you were being sarcastic here. Remember WP:Civility. Please also read the list of policy links I posted above, including WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I'm also giving you a friendly heads up about Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. In case you are are not aware of this, WP takes an extremely serious view of national and ethnic stereotyping, the attempt to out editors' national or ethnic background, and the attempt to use prejudice about national or ethnic background to allege editing bias. One is entitled to an opinion that all Poles cannot accept criticism or that all Poles will talk up their own history - but that opinion has absolutely no place in the Wikipedia editing process. Stick to WP guidelines, not personal feelings. Moreover, every country on the planet has myths about its own history, and it is not up to us to debunk these myths, as per WP:OR. As we continue this discussion, we should be referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than our own personal opinions about sources and editors. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok here is an important source [16]. Starting with page 93. Page 96 has the important quote "Squadron 303 became the highest scoring squadron of the entire Battle of Britain". So source directly contradicts some article text. The article at moment says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), No. 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one." The source above says (pg 95): "In postwar years it was found that both the Allies and the Germans exaggerated the numbers of adversary aircraft claimed as destroyed. However, the Polish numbers remained accurate" - and then it discusses why in more detail.
The highest scoring pilot in the Battle of Britain was a Czech pilot flying with the 303: [17]
Here is another source: [18] (page 31 bottom and it also addresses the accuracy issue on page 31 and 34).
And another good source is "A question of honor: the Kosciuszko Squadron" but that's not available online. Dr. Loosmark 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've recently tried to expand the article to include 303's combat involvement after the battle of britain, as they were engaged in most of the Fighter Command's endevours through 1941-44. Also expanded on the 1940 operations too, and tidied the grammar a little. Hope everone if okay with article thus far. Thanks Harryurz ( talk) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A horrible section to add because experience has shown that "Popular Culture" can mean that even a tiny, incidental mention of 303 Sqn can be construed as being important, according to the individual editor. For example, "As part of an advertising campaign designed to highlight its concerns about the numbers of foreign workers (including Polish migrants) in the United Kingdom, the British National Party used the distinctly British icon of a Spitfire to illustrate its idea of a Battle for Britain. Ironically, the Spitfire shown in its advertising was RF-D from 303 (Polish) Squadron. [1] It was the Spitfire with Donald Duck artwork of Polish ace Jan Zumbach, who during the Battle of Britain scored eight confirmed kills against Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters."
This is hardly important because a)It was accidental that Zumbach's 303 Sqn Spitfire was put on the poster. b) The accidental inclusion of Zumbach's Spitfire has no relevance to the history of the unit - clearly the BNP had no idea and more than likely couldn't care less that it made a mistake.
"No. 303 is mentioned in the song "Aces in Exile" from the album Coat of Arms by Swedish metal band Sabaton. Also mentioned in the song are No. 310 Squadron RAF and No. 401 Squadron RCAF, which were also manned by foreign pilots participating in the Battle of Britain." So a Swedish metal band mentions 303 Sqn? Is the song in Swedish, or can others listen in? How often and in what context is 303 Sqn "mentioned"?
"As part of the 'Bloody Foreigners' series Channel 4 also commissioned digital agency fish in a bottle to create an online game that allows players to relive some of the history of 303 squadron and its involvement in the Battle of Britain. [20] [21]" Reads like an advertisement for fish-in-a-bottle.
If the appearence of 303 sqn is incidental, or accidental, it is not relevant to this article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the BNP's ignorant use of a huge photo of a Spitfire in Jan Zumbach's markings as a backdrop, with the title 'Battle for Britain', when BNP leader Nick Griffin made an anti-immigration speech, was widely remarked on at the time. It was pointed out to Griffin and he tried, unconvincingly, to laugh it off. Along with Griffin's poor performance on the BBC's Question Time around then, it may have contributed to the party's disastrous loss of credibility and votes. The Spitfire in the picture was not in fact Zumbach's EN951, it was the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's preserved AB910, which at that time was painted with Zumbach's RF-D codes and 'Angry Duck' cartoon to commemorate the Polish ace. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
An image caption mentions "Left stairs down". Is that a literal translation of a Polish phrase, or the contemporary phrase used by the 303 or RAF? If not, the current name for the formation is "Echelon left". Lstor ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is Paskiewicz? He was the first to shoot down plane for 303 squadron. Ovsek ( talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Tadeusz Arentowicz to No. 303 Squadron RAF. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for chronicling the brave! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace303 ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Should be added to 303 pilots
Piotr’s final flight was on June 27, 1941. Pilots from 1 Polish Fighter Wing were ordered to fly over France in the morning as part of Circus 25 (Z.181). Their target supposed to be a steel factory in Lillie and the Poles were ordered to fly at 13 – 16,000 feet as top cover for 24 Blenheims. As the weather worsened, instead Poles were ordered to sweep the area of Le Touquet and Gravelines. The Polish formation was led by Wing Commander John Kent and Wing Commander Piotr Łaguna, both using aircraft from 303 Squadron: P8567 RF-D and P8331 RF-M respectively. 2A00:23C7:A31E:F301:2D3E:AEB5:BB71:4914 ( talk) 06:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot about how many kills the squadron got (including, quite reasonably, disagreements about the exact number), but there is nothing saying their losses. CrickedBack ( talk) 14:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Not even aviation related nor military affiliated. 72.214.215.25 ( talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I have translated the article into Russian, but still cannot find information on initial number of Polish pilots enlisted to RAF in 1940 or the flying force of #303 for that matter. Please advise. Basicowes ( talk) 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)