Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 British? 2 Commonwealth Air Training Schools= 3 Battle of Britain vs. The Blitz 4 Canadian number too low? 5 Major battle 6 Dowding-System 7 Books 8 Battle of the Beams 9 Vandalism? 10 Barrage balloons 11 Australian Contribution 12 Big Wing Controversy 13 Intelligence 14 New Zealand involvement? 15 74 Squadron "South African"? 16 significance of B of B 17 Italian participation 18 Not a lot of citations and a tad POV 19 Duplication of data 20 Please Explain 21 Structure 22 Bias 23 Split out Foreign Contribution Section? 24 British number inconsistent 25 The Spitfire and BF-109 26 RAF tactics: Schw[a/ä]rme 27 Split: Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution 28 Split: Battle of Britain Aircraft 29 Forgotten Heroes 30 Casualty numbers 31 "The RAF of the Navy?" section at the bottom of the article 32 Reverences & Bibliography: Cited works and recommended reading 33 Information related to Italians is being vandalised 34 ... 35 Issue with combatants 36 Italy 37 Unternehmen Adlerangriff 38 Semi protect in order perhaps? 39 Time to go for Good Article status? 39.1 The times they are a'changin' 40 Misleading paragraph

British?

In British military tradition, the Battle of Britain is remembered with at least as much pride as the Battle of Trafalgar, Waterloo and Agincourt. In addition, the battle has entered popular legend around the world as an inspiring story of how a small island, standing alone against Nazi tyranny, managed to defeat a powerful enemy.

Guys, are we forgetting to remember the difference between British, English and Scots? One can argue the first two battle examples, but how can Agincourt be considered a British Military victory, or even an example of British history? Occuring in 1415 puts it well before the union of the crowns of England and Scotland, let alone the actual Act of Union that created Great Britain.

Let's remember that anything before the Act of Union cannot officially be "British"; it must be either English, or Scots. Agreed?

At present the article states this: "Another way in which the RAF conserved its strength is by ordering its pilots to pretend to be shot down when facing long odds. They were to enter a spin and then regain control before they hit the ground. If the Germans had watched the planes they shot at to be sure they crashed, then they would have been shot by one of the downed airman's allies, so they could not afford to pay too close attention to most of the "casualties". Due to this tactic, the Luftwaffe reported shooting down more than twice as many pilots as were in the RAF."

Whilst this may be a tactic which was employed (and I've never heard of it despite reading extensively around the subject) it almost certainly cannot be said to have been singularly responsible for the overclaiming of Luftwaffe pilots. Overclaiming occurred on both sides due to the inherent confusion of air combat involving massed formations, not because of deliberate tactics to trick the opposition into thinking they had shot unharmed planes down.

Similarly US bomber formations filed hugely exaggerated claims of german fighter kills during the daylight raids over Germany later in the war.

---

Commonwealth Air Training Schools=

I'm just wondering, why aren't the Commonwealth Air Training Schools mentioned in the article, didn't they train most of the pilots? MattD-July 1st, 2006 (Canada Day)

British Commonwealth Air Training Plan says that the scheme started in May 1940. I would have thought that would be too late for many pilots to have been trained and then to have participated in the battle given that it finished in October. Shimbo 08:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Britain vs. The Blitz

There are full length articles on both of these. Both seem to cover much the same ground. Why does Wikipedia need two?

Because they are not the same thing. The Battle of Britain was daylight attacks in the summer and early autumn of 1940 preparatory to a (cancelled) invasion. The Blitz was night time attacks in the winter of 1940/41 in a (failed) attempt to terror bomb Britain into submission. The reason there is some overlap in the articles is that some people don't realise this and put information in the wrong article.--Shimbo 12:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What is OKH ?

    Oberkommando des Heeres

Canadian number too low?

Acording to the official site of the Royal Canadian Air Force:

"Canadian airmen played their part in the Battle of Britain. Over 100 Canadian pilots flew on fighter operations during the Battle of Britain. Another 200 fought with the RAF's Bomber and Coastal Commands. An untold number served as groundcrew, keeping the fighters, bombers and patrol Aircraft flying.[/b]

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/hist/hist_battle_e.asp

More than 2,800 people turned out to the Battle of Britain parade held at the Canada Aviation Museum in Ottawa commemorate the 64th anniversary of the event. It was the largest turnout ever. [b]One hundred and three Canadians flew in the Battle of Britain, 23 died and 30 were killed later in the war.

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/news/2004/09/24_e.asp

I think the number of Canadians should be changed from 86 to 103 respectfully.

The point here is that the RAF roll of honour only recognises 86. The table specifically references the RAF Roll of Honour. That is why the change to the table was reverted. IMHO what is needed is a separate sentence saying something like "Although the RAF only recognises 83 Canadian pilots who flew on fighter operations during the Battle of Britain, the RCAF claims the actual figure was over 100." I will make a change as above, which I hope will satisfy everyone. Please let me now if it doesn't. Shimbo 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also edited the section for style, merging the info that you added with that previously added and rewriting the information that seems to have been cut and pasted from other sources, as we aren't supposed to do that. Shimbo 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be another column beside the roll of honour number with the number of pilots from official government websites. Veterans affairs Canada also claims 103 fighter pilots flew in the battle, along with 200 others in RAF bomber and costal command. Erik

Major battle

I re-inserted the statement that BoB was the first major battle to be fought entirely in the air. Whoever disagreed with me cites the bombings of Britain in WWI, but I would submit that these were not major battles. It's hard to imagine them having the same strategic effect that the BoB had. Brittanica says "The first major battle fought exclusively in the air" [1] similarly [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] DJ Clayworth 16:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Why do we write, that The RAF recognises[7] 2440 British and 510 overseas pilots who flew at least one authorised operational sortie, while the link given says, that: 'The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain?... Pibwl ←« 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the statement at the top of the Roll of Honour page is inconsistent with the actual numbers listed by name i.e. if you add up the individual names listed there are 2440 British and 510 from overseas. --Shimbo 20:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Dowding-System

Hi, there is considerable doubt about the term "dowding-system" since it is hard to find sources about when and by whom such a term was installed (except of the english wikipedia), can anyone bring light to that ? rgds--80.121.111.78 13:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to your question about information on the Dowding System, it was a invented by a man called Sir Hugh Dowding. One aspect of the system was that aircraft (for example the Spitfire and Hurricane) would fly in tight formations to create a bigger punch against German Bombers. The system theorised that 12 aircraft (1 squadron)= 96 guns firing 1100 rpm.

The system was flawed because it allowed the last section of the squadron to be jumped from behind without warning. Dowding also theorised that the lead aircraft should start firing 400 yards away from the enemy aircraft. This did not work because the bullets diverged and fell away from the target while in the air. Eventually all these mistakes were rectified with the English aircraft spread out to allow more people to look for the enemy. Firing also started at 200-150 yards instead of 400 yards.--Atilla 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Books

I recently read Richard Overy's short book "The Battle". It dispels many of the myths surrounding the Battle of Britain. I believe it should be on the book list for this subject. Has anyone else here read it?

The Battle - [8] . Richard Overy - [9] . Penguin Books, 2000.

I have read Overy's book. (In the US, it bears a slightly longer title, "The Battle of Britain," with the sub-title, "The Myth and the Reality.") I found the book outstanding and would join the recommendation that it be on the book list for this subject. Overy's book is quite concise yet sets out a keen, sometimes highly original analysis of the topic. (I have also read some of Overy's longer books including "The Air War: 1939-1945" and find his work consistently both solid and illuminating.)

Battle of the Beams

Does anyone know if the beams were used in the daylight battles and hence this belongs in this article or were they used at night and hence this section should be part of The Blitz? They were certainly more important at night as without them the aircraft had dificulty finding their targets. I'll move this unless there are objections. Shimbo 09:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

After reading the main articles, I think that the language here way overstates the accuracy of Knickebein, with phrases like "pinpoint accuracy". The successor X-Gerät system was accurate only within a few hundred yards, and Knickebein, presumably, was considerably less accurate than that (as one would expect from a basic radio navigation system at that distance, even with a narrow beam). I've toned down the language a bit. David 11:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I noticed the text "The German airforce also shot the British Prime Minister" under the topic "Luftwaffe targets RAF airfields", I suppose it's vandalism. Thought I'd edit it out, but I couldn't locate it. Anybody know what to do?

More Vandalism? - Emma Hobson?

...theories on strategic bombing, such as those espoused by Emma Hobson.

:I've removed this until someone can verify it.--Shimbo 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Barrage balloons

Why is there nothing about the barrage balloons in here? There were a lot of them, and they did significantly deter low-level bombing, among other things. Scourgeofsmallishinsects 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Contribution

I removed this paragraph: actually in the battle of britain the australian contribuion was very slow in process as the asutralians didnt know about how often the bombing supplies would be sent. The reason for this was that their communication was low and they couldnt be told of the rate of income and import to the australian defence force.

I'm not sure exactly what someone is trying to say here but it's very bad English and unreferenced. Shimbo 09:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There were Australians flying in the Battle of Britain, one notable being Flying Officer Desmond Sheen, though he flew as a member of the RAF rather than as a member of the RAAF. RAAF personnel were easy to identify due to their uniforms, which were darker blue than the standard RAF/RCAF/RNZAF blue-grey. Australians in the RAF also wore nationality shoulder titles, I believe.--MarshallStack 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I went and watched various Anzac day parades in Melbourne. The uniforms were indeed a dark blue, so much different than the British uniforms, more like Navy. The Aussies provided so many pilots. You would think so from tgese articles. Wallie 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Wing Controversy

There is some discussion about the friction between Hugh Dowding, Keith Park, Trafford Leigh-Mallory and the Air Ministry due to the use of "small wings" versus "big wings", leading to Dowding's and Park's separate dismissals. Perhaps this should at least be touched on in the Battle of Britain article, as the different fighter tactics contributed to the outcome. Blue Wizard 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Have look at the section on RAF tactics its covered there. --Sf 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence

Ok, in the 'Luftwaffe Strategy' section, we say German Intelligence in Britain was fractured. If I recall, the truth is even more interesting, but we don't seem to link to this info. In fact, British Intelligence ran a fake German Intelligence network in Britain during the war. If there isn't somewhere to link this, and nobody else has a source, I'll dig one out, write some stuff somewhere and link it. 57.66.51.165 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no connection. The Double-Cross System targeted Abwehr agents, & AFAIK, Luftwaffe never used agents; they relied on B-Dienst, photo recon (overheads, as they're now called), & that like. Trekphiler 11:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand involvement?

Why is it, that altho New Zealand aparantly had the second highest numbers in battle, there is no deeper focus as with the other countries later down the article?

I'm not sure about this, unless it has something to do with NZ personnel being widely dispersed throughout the RAF and actual RNZAF units not arriving in Europe until after the Battle of Britain. Of course, there were notable Kiwis in the RAF, such as "Cobber" Kain and Air Vice-Marshal Sir Keith Park. --MarshallStack 23:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

74 Squadron "South African"?

Can anyone provide reference for RAF 74 Sqn being called "South African" other than its commander being "Sailor" Malan, a South African? Unlike the other Dominions, there was no separate South African Air Force during WWII. South African air squadrons were part of the Army and wore Army uniform with a distinctive cap badge and RAF-derived aircrew badges. The main difference was that their aircraft roundel centres were orange, rather than red. South Africans in the RAF wore RAF uniform with "South Africa" shoulder titles, as pictures of Group Captain Malan will show. There were no entirely South African-manned units taking part in the Battle of Britain, though there were of course South Africans in RAF units.

On the same note, rarely, if at all, were Dominion units entirely Canadian, Australian, South African or New Zealand-manned. There was much interchange of nationalities between RAF and Commonwealth units, though possible exceptions of course were home-based Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and South African units.--MarshallStack 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anything I find on 74 Squadron does not call it South African, although some RAF Squadrons did reference nationalities. For example, my father in law, a Canadian, first flew with 44(Rhodesia) Squadron in Bomber Command. In Fighter command, there was 242(Canadian) Squadron of the RAF, as opposed to 1 Squadron (later 401 Squadron) RCAF. 139.142.75.220 03:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes. I am also concerned about the lack of coverage for South Africa, not only in this article, but all WW2 related items. I guess that it is due to the humility of these people, the old Dutch spirit. They don't brag. They just do it. South Africa played a crutial role. Wallie 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Some RAF Squadrons were 'adopted' by Commonwealth nations and resulted in exmmples like 44(Rhodesia), 222 (Natal), 257 (Burma) squadron, etc etc. This shouldnt be confused with RCAF RAAF or such squadrons. In the case of South Africa, the SA Government specifically requested no SAAF units serve with the Allies outside of the African continent, hence all SAAF units were with the Desert Air Force in the African campaign ( Some dd serve on into the Italian campaign in the latter war years.) As had been mentioned many South africans joined the RAF and served in Europe. Harryurz 14:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a personal friend of one of the few surviving 74 Squadron members from the battle, and one of its tops scorers, John Freeborn DFC. I have had extensive discussions with him about his experience and his relationship with Sailor Malan. The squadron was not at all a South African squadron. Malan simply took over as squadron leader during the battle after its previous commander was promoted to station commander at Hornchurch. John has a somewhat sour view of Malan, after Malan attempted to avoid blame for The Battle of Barking Creek by blaming John at his courts martial. John also remembers Malan as an inveterate gambler who was always borrowing to pay his debts. Prune 13:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

significance of B of B

does anyone here know what the significance of the Battle of Britain was or is.

Can I suggest that you read the article? Particularly the section Aftermath. Shimbo 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

weel boo frickity hoo, dont sas me you SOB

Try reading Wikipedia:Civility Shimbo 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much for your input, i appreciate it to the fullest the my physical and mental abilitys will allows me to do!

That's better. Now, please tell me, does the article answer your question or would you like more help? Also please check out Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages Shimbo 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The significance of the Battle of Britain, and all World War articles is that a hell of a lot of people died or lost everything they had. If you were born after the war, you are extremely lucky. This may be POV, howeverWallie 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Italian participation

Italian expeditionary force called Corpo Aereo Italiano, (Italian Air Corps) CAI, took part in the Battle of Britain from October 1940 to January 1941. It was formed from the 13th Bomber Wing (13o Stormo BT), 43rd Bomber Wing (43o Stormo BT), 56th Fighter Wing (56o Stormo CT) and 179th Recon Flight (179a Squadriglia).

Kurt.

I must admit that the Italian contribution is news to me. While I don't dispute that it has its place in the article, I have rearranged things slightly to try to put the reference in a more suitable place. I think this aspect could be expanded upon.

At the minute the entire article seems to be mostly from the Allied POV, especially the first part. This makes it difficult to find a good place to mention the Italian contribution.

Finally, I am not sure that Italy should be listed under Combatants. If they are, should not all the nations who fought with the RAF be on there as well?Mumby 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think all the Nation should mentioned because we have to respect all the Fallen. The Corpo Aereo Italiano concentrated its attacks especially on Harwich. 54,320 Kg. of bombs were dropped. The "C.A.I" lost 20 men and 8 planes (3 bombers and 5 fighters). The famous movie of 1969 about the battle of England full ignore the Italian Fallen in the final list!!!!!

Yes, I agree we should respect the fallen, but I think that including them under 'Combatants' might confuse people who are new to the subject. The sources I have managed to find put the date of Italian contribution as being from around the 10th of September onwards, which is long after the generally agreed date on which the BoB began (and the one referred to in the article). In my opinion, a section on The Italian Contribution should probably be enough. Mumby 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Italian contribution went from Oct. 24, 1940 until January 1941 though some fighter operated until April 1941.

Not a lot of citations and a tad POV

While I personally agree with most of the reasoning behind this article, many of the theories and opinions are not backed up by a quotation. There is also heavy converage of some nations, and not others. However, I would not like to see anything removed, just improved. Thank you. Wallie 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok im not sure were i should put this. well i know douglas barder had no legs because of an airplane accident but youve written legless which can mean drunkeness and in the context of the sentence it comes across quite funny trying to imagine a drunk pilot trying to get everyone to follow his big wing idea.Corustar 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have actually met with Douglas Bader, Corustar. Good guy. He would have enjoyed your comment immensely. Wallie 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this sentence a little POV? "It also had far reaching consequences in keeping Britain available to the allies as a jumping-off point for the liberation of mainland Europe four years later."

It reads like Britain's only contribution to D-Day was as a stop-off area for the other Allies. Psywar 04:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault maybe..I put that in. It replaced a rather gushy and florid 'saving the world' rant. I just used 'The Allies' to mean 'everybody'. I couldn't say 'The British liberation of....', because (as a Brit) I am only too well aware of what we owe to those who crossed oceans to be there. ChrisRed 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplication of data

There an understandable degree of duplication creeping into the article, i.e. we have three references to the nationalities of the Fighter Command pilots; unless anyone has any objections can I delete the text references, retaining the tabular data? Harryurz 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Explain

I wish to know the significance of the term heinz beans... (etc..)

Childish vandalism, now reverted. Shimbo 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Structure

A good article and pretty well written. But I have a problem with the structure. The stuff about tactics, strategy (why are these separate?) and the 'Beams' rather gets in the way of the readability of the article and, in consequence, probably stops the average reader from even getting as far as the 'Aftermath' section. Could those sections not be put in after the 'Aftermath' section so that the immediacy of the article is not lost? (I'd do it myself only others are clearly already doing a good job on this article and so I'm disinclined to tamper).

Oh, and why are there two conflicting start dates in the first para.? One being the 9th July and the other being the 10th July. Perhaps these should be altered too? Marcus22 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Re: Why is it, that altho New Zealand aparantly had the second highest numbers in battle, there is no deeper focus as with the other countries later down the article?

I'm not sure about this, unless it has something to do with NZ personnel being widely dispersed throughout the RAF and actual RNZAF units not arriving in Europe until after the Battle of Britain. Of course, there were notable Kiwis in the RAF, such as "Cobber" Kain and Air Vice-Marshal Sir Keith Park.

Answer. Because New Zealand doesn't matter, but Poland, Canada and the United States do. Much of the "history" in these articles is being written by wiki "military task forces" from these three countries. You will notice that Germany is not too well covered either. Wallie 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Answer. Because no New Zelaender came and provided more info. For example, it's hard to expect from Pole that he will be inserting info about New Zealand, since this topic is hardly known in Poland. Szopen 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before, some countries are more humble than others. As you say, Polish people would only mention other Poles, or their friends, i.e., Canadians and Americans. People from other (more humble) countries, mention all participants in a balanced way, irrespective of nationality. Wallie 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Split out Foreign Contribution Section?

I suggest that the majority of the Foreign contribution section should be placed in a separate article as it generates a lot of controversy and its length is unbalancing the article, but I do not like to see acurate details being deleted. A summary in this article, with a separate article where people can put details about the various country's contributions would solve this problem. Shimbo 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "accurate details" mean that certain countries who amde minor contributions have so few pilots, that each one's exploits are explained at length. The North American contribution to this Battle was minimal. Certainly there should be no mention of individual pilots, unless they did something special. But anyone reading this would think that it was significant. The truth is that mainly English pilots aided by a few from Scotland and Poland saved the day. Wallie 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I have included individual references to US aircrew is because of the continuing false perception ( perpetuated by Hollywood films like Pearl Harbour) that some nation's contribution to the Battle of Britain was more than any others. While I agree the 'national contributions' section has now become far too prominent compared to the rest of the article, it is a prime purpose of the article to dispel these myths and misconceptions wherever possible; I hope most regular contributors here will agree . Thanks Harryurz 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that people will look at this and think the American contribution was "vast" complete with heroes and "Eagle Squadrons". Belgium's contribution was far larger, and they don't even rate a mention. Wallie 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

British number inconsistent

In the intro the number is quoted as 2440, and in foreign contributions it's quoted as 2543. What's up? Abaharaki 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spitfire and BF-109

This section needs a fairly substantial rewrite to correct spelling and grammer. I do not know if the facts presented are correct, but someone with knowledge about the subject should validate them. --Brat32 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ive had a go at a rewrite- it occurred to me that the Hurricane really needs to be included, as it was a major player in the battle. Hope everyone agrees. Feel free to add and amend what hopefully is a basis for a better section to the article . Thanks Harryurz 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it even belong? These aircraft may be worthy of mention in a BoB article, but this section jumps into technical areas that are already well covered in each plane's own article. I do think it'd be good to have a section dedicated to a (brief) description of the more common fighters and bombers engaged in the battle. --Spook Fruit 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

RAF tactics: Schw[a/ä]rme

The section says of the Luftwaffe, "They employed the looser and more flexible four-ship 'Schwarme' developed in the Spanish Civil War". 'Schwarme' is probably meant to be the plural of 'Schwarm', which is German for "swarm" (surprise, surprise) — however, the plural involves an umlaut: 'Schwärme' is correct German. I don't want to change the article and have no historical reference, I'd just like to point you to this error (being a native speaker of German). SeL 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tis now... :) Wallie 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Split: Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution

The subsection of this article, "Foreign Contributions", was split into a subarticle entitled Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution on 8/23/2006. Yunzhong Hou 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Split: Battle of Britain Aircraft

The subsection of this article entailing various aircraft, was split into a subarticle entitled Battle of Britain Aircraft on 8/23/2006. Yunzhong Hou 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten Heroes

As we move further and further away from the events of 1940 the time may have come to put the Battle of Britain into proper historical perspective. The heroism and sacrifice of the young pilots will, of course, never be forgotten; but the battle itself has less strategic significance than is usually assumed. Above all it is important to understand that it was not the RAF that stopped a German invasion but the Royal Navy. Any attempt to cross the Channel in the face of the massive superiority of the navy would have been military suicide. White Guard 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, ships are very vulnerable to air attack, the royal navy would have lost many ships if the RAf was destroyedMdk0642 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ships were vulnerable to Stuka/dive bombing attack ( as seen in the Crete campaign in 1941). However at least 6,000 feet of clear visibility was vital for effective aiming in a diving attack; something the Luftwaffe would not have in any measure over the Channel in the late summer autumn of 1940. So the threat to the Home Fleet would not be that high. The destruction of the RAF fighters would still have left a largely intact Bomber force, who, with the navy. would have taken huge losses but would have inflicted critic losses on an invasion force. Harryurz 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

I'd like to point out that a news article by BBC concerning the Battle of Britain (link below) says that "...RAF claimed to have shot down 2,698 German planes. The actual figure was more like 1,294. The RAF lost 788 planes - far fewer than the 3,058 the Luftwaffe claimed." The figures stated in this wikipedia article gives 1,547 and 2,698 aircraft casualties for RAF and Luftwaffe, respectively. I wonder if someone could verify the numbers with a source citation? Though there is some text about this already in the "Losses claimed" chapter, the numbers don't add up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/15/newsid_3521000/3521611.stm

--80.222.17.246 09:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Strength vs the Losses section under German aircraft (side bar near the top) don't add up. The Germans lost more planes than were even reported to have been at the battle?

I've added citations for both the strength and losses for both sides now. I've also split the initial strength into various sub-components. The numbers, however, will never "add up" as the strenght, replacement rate and so on varied on a daily basis. The current numbers reflect the strength around 1 July 1940, but would be vastly different if one looked at the strength a couple of weeks later or previously. As to the strengt and losses not adding up - of course they dont - the losses were replaced as the battle went on. Abel29a 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The RAF of the Navy?" section at the bottom of the article

Has anyone got any thoughts on the group of links at the bottom of the page? Who put them there? Should we try to include a section on this debate in the article, at the moment it looks like it has been bolted on as an afterthought.Mumby 12:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mumby, it was me who put those links there (if it makes any difference). It was not an 'afterthought,' for this debate is very recent, and I've included in the Links section quite deliberately. If you'd like to try to write about the debate, you're welcome. I've just provided the material.—Barbatus 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think that was obvious from the article and putting the links at the bottom like that doesn't really do much for the quality of the article. As soon as I have time I will try to put the links into some kind of context. Does anybody else have an opinion on this?Mumby 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet again: you're welcome to do it. This is exactly why I put those links there, so somebody with spare time will use 'em.—Barbatus 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverences & Bibliography: Cited works and recommended reading

I've compiled a short list of books which, I think, might be of some help. Of course, the list is far from being comprehensive, but, as in any bibliographical research, one book leads to several others ... so feel free to update it (I probably will not do it, unless something comes up in my reading or browsing). As for the References, it would be better if you will specify the page of a certain edition of a book or article you've used: just 'Robinson' is not very informative, wouldn't you agree? Thanks.—Barbatus 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Think my formatting of one of the references didn't help there ;) The Land 15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire! It should encourage editors to work on references. Good start :) (Barbatus)

Information related to Italians is being vandalised

Stop doing so. Italy took part in the battle with one Air Corps. Corpo Aereo Italiano, (Italian Air Corps) CAI, took part in the Battle of Britain from October 1940 to January 1941. It was formed from the 13th Bomber Wing (13o Stormo BT), 43rd Bomber Wing (43o Stormo BT), 56th Fighter Wing (56o Stormo CT) and 179th Recon Flight (179a Squadriglia). The size (which is not that small) or overall effect of the Italian expeditionary force is not relevant. What is relevant is that Italy took part in the battle on German side. --Kurt Leyman 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant, and I do not understand why anyone would wish to remove this reference. White Guard 00:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

...

As far as the Western front goes, I don't know that much about the Battle of Britain, but from what I've read, British victory was owed not to the fact of any crushing british victory, but the fact that Hitler had a limited window of opportunity in which to act before he wanted to launch barbarossa. If Germany had displayed it's full might against Britain, without any regard for the Eastern Campaign, then Britain would have been utterly crushed.

Issue with combatants

More than one contributor has seen fit to add the flags of other nations to both sides in the 'Combatants' section of the infobox. I always remove the flags but perhaps it is time to think about a better solution for the problem of how to represent the multinational nature of the forces on both sides, but particularly in the RAF. The Battle of Britain page in other languages seems to have the same problem, with no consistency in which flags are displayed. Unfortunately there is no equivalent to, for exapmle, the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. However, the latter article does have a bullet point combatant list, perhaps we could do this? Anyone got any better ideas?Mumby 10:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding the different combatants as a bullet point list, but maybe we should have a minimum number of pilots participating before a country is listed? Palestine for instance had one pilot involved, if we are to list all the countries with just a handfull of participants we'd have a long list, I'd imagine. (Not that I have no idea about the actual numbers involved tough). Maybe we should list the numbers of pilots all the nations listed had involved as well? Abel29a 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think I agree that the bulleted list is the best way to go, even though it was my idea. Even including the countries which contributed just 1 pilot the list is not too long, so I think if we have it it should include all the nations. There is a good explanation of how many were from each nation at Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution so we might not want to repeat too much of that here. The alternative is to add a note to the infobox saying something like "including many combatants from other nations, see text of main article." or something like that.Mumby 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after thinking some more about it, and looking at the foreign contribution article it wouldnt be to big to list all the participants in a numbered list. Adding a note with give any reader the necessary link, so yeah thats good. I say we simply do it - no need to postpone things is there :) (I've taken the liberty of copying your set up from the infobox here) - if somebody strongly disagrees, hey they can revert it. Abel29a 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abel129a, I think this is the best solution to explaing a unique situation. Hopefully people will discuss it here before reverting, but we will see! Mumby 10:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain/Archive 2
Location Result
Belligerents
United Kingdom Including combatants from United States of America Australia Canada Czechoslovakia Ireland Palestine Poland	Nazi Germany Including combatants from Italy

Italy

Italy was a major power that fought against Britain with Germany. Same cannot be said about the countries that fought with Britain. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. According to the RAF museum website the Corpo Aereo Italiano flew 97 bomber and 113 fighter sorties, I don't see how this can be considered more notable than, for example, the USA's involvment or anybody elses. Here is the link to the RAF museum website [10]. What I would really like to do is make a detailed entry on the Corpo Aereo Italiano at the Battle of Britain Foreign Contributions page, but I am yet to find a decent reference for any information (in English!). Does such a small number of sorties warrant its own flag in the infobox?Mumby 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to my information, the Italian expeditionary force Corpo Aereo Italiano, (Italian Air Corps) CAI was formed from the 13th Bomber Wing (13o Stormo BT), 43rd Bomber Wing (43o Stormo BT), 56th Fighter Wing (56o Stormo CT) and 179th Recon Flight (179a Squadriglia). The Corpo Aereo Italiano concentrated its attacks especially against Harwich. During its life:

Bombers: 137 missions for 315 flight hours and 54,320kg of bombs dropped. Fighter: 934 missions for 1470 flight hours. Recon: 5 missions for 20 flight hours. Recorded aerial victories: 15. Complete losses: 8 planes; 3 bombers and 5 fighters. 20 dead. A number of men were also captured, but I don't have the figures.

Interestingly, the famous 1969 movie "Battle of Britain" ignored the Italian participation and losses completely.

Here is a decent site with information of the Corpo Aereo Italiano in English. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco_bob.htm

Best regards, --Kurt Leyman 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Kurt. That is a pretty good website, I want to track down some of the sources it quotes because I would rather cite them in an article than a website. It seems to be that some of this information really needs to go into the Battle of Britain Foreign Contributions page, at the moment it is very skewed toward the British side of things. Maybe it even deserves its own page? Either way, I would like to read a good, non-website, reference. As for the film: most war films miss out a lot of important details, I could name several hundred! I guess we won't be citing any movies as good references for this article! Mumby 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unternehmen Adlerangriff

I made a new article for this to avoid confusion. It was called "Adlertag" all over the place and was set to direct to Operation Adler which had 3 'Adler' operations in there. There are only a few basic details in the angriff article but if someone is feeling energetic they could maybe move over the sections appearing here, and free up some space for more details. Fluffy999 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect in order perhaps?

Seeing as the article gets vandalised several times every day now... Abel29a 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Mumby 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - someone just deleted the entire page. Darkmind1970 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - everyones time is being wasted monitoring idiocy --Sf 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've requested a semi-protect. Hopefully that'll deal with the issue Abel29a 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to go for Good Article status?

I've grown quite fond of this article over the last few days - maybe it's time we pushed for a GA and eventually FA status? Now that the page is semi-protected and there seems there is a good number of regular editors in here - it should be possible to push this article to greater heights. I can see the lack of inline citations as one of the negatives atm - I unfortunataley have only two of the sources used in my possesion (Bungay and Deighton books), so if anybody else could help we could get som more citations in place. What else can anybody see missing from (as a first goal) GA status? Abel29a 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The times they are a'changin'

I corrected

"fought entirely in the air."

to

"fought entirely by air forces. (Sometimes called an entirely aerial battle, it depended on radar operators, controllers, and maintenance personnel on the ground.)"

We can argue sometime about the influence of airpower on WW1. I also corrected

"developed in the Spanish Civil War"

to

"rediscovered in the Spanish Civil War from principles dating to Boelcke in 1916,"

based on (I think) Denis Winter, First of the Few; I think Deighton's Fighter says something like it, too. Invention in the Spanish Civil War is a common myth. I corrected

"This led to the media belief the big wings were far more effective than they actually were."

The belief certainly wasn't limited to "media", or Bader & Leigh-Mallory, among others, wouldn't have been such staunch supporters. I corrected Me-110 "too fragile" to "too clumsy". I added "still running" to "still running the English Channel." Churchill said it was to demo British courage; anybody have a source? I also added

"Moreover, there was never a systematic focus on any one type of target (airbases, radar station, aircraft factories), so the already haphazard effort was further diluted.^[1]"

and

"This is, in part, a reflection of the very novelty of the type of combat, as well as the control system. It was perfectly possible for Sector Control to have been assigned one frequency for all fighters to "listen out" on (or "guard", in modern parlance), with "roving" intercept guidance, rather than the close positive control used in the event, which limited controllers' ability to handle large numbers of interceptors.^[2]."

and

"Despite appearances, the Groups were not mutually supporting; Park, for instance, could not demand assistance from Quintin-Brand (from whom he often got it), nor from Leigh-Mallory (from whom he more often did not). This was because Dowding had never issued standing orders to assist, nor created a method to co-ordinate it.^[3]"

and

"(It would have had little tactical value in any case.)"

(based on Deighton, IIRC), and

"Tactical flexibility was further hampered by Luftwaffe rejecting drop tanks for their 109s, despite them being available; unquestionably, many German fighter pilots drowned for lack of fuel who would not have.^[4]"

and

"these, often the least experienced men, were also often the first to die.^[5]"

and

"Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their precious Merlins to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.^[6]"

and

"This assertion ignores the ignoble fact Germany at the time had no armour piercing bomb capable of doing to a British cruiser (let alone a battleship) what Japan did to Prince of Wales."

and "to keep station." Re Defiant & Battles, I'd also add

"This was, to a degree, outside Dowding's authority; it was not outside Churchill's, but was not done."

but I can't think of a source that explicitly says "it wasn't done"; is that OR? I rewrote

"above convoys of freighter vessels speeding through the English Channel."

as redundant & excessively hyperbolic; anybody who doesn't know can look up "convoy", & 6 knots is hardly "speeding". (More like race walking.) I deleted

" and father of John F. Kennedy, the future President of the United States"

as too topical. Anybody who doesn't already know, & wants to, can use the link; that's what it's for. And finally, the article says

"Neither Hitler nor the Wehrmacht believed it possible to carry out a successful amphibious assault on the British Isles until the RAF had been neutralised."

This view is mistaken; cf Deighton, Fighter, or Macksey, Hitler's Blunders. I'd add a comment, but I'm uncertain it fits the tone, & can't cite a source. I rely on

1. ^ Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?
2. ^ Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?
3. ^ Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?
4. ^ Deighton, Fighter.
5. ^ Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?
6. ^ Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?; Fitzsimons, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, "Defiant, Boulton Paul", Volume 7, p.712-4, and "Battle, Fairey", Volume 2, p.284-5.

Trekphiler 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work there Trekphiler - I've asked for a GA review, hopefully we can push this puppy up the quality ladder quite smartly. Abel29a 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to do it. Just, check the sources for footnoting. I don't have them handy. Also, crosscheck Luftwaffe; some of the same issues are dealt with there. (See the talk page, too; modesty forbids saying what you'll find...) Trekphiler 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph

Quote- "Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their precious Merlins to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.^[1]"; This is a somewhat misleading, controversial and generally incorrect statement- the Defiant went onto night fighting, the Battles and their crews were held in hand for combating the predicted invasion. Further to that the huge increase in aircraft production meant there was no shortage of fighter aircraft or a need to swop Merlin engines from bombers to fighters. Using anything from the Allen book Who Won the Battle of Britain? as a legitimate reference source should be with considerable caution , as much of the 'factual' information is simply 'Dizzy' Allen's own, often flawed opinions. I request this misleading paragraph be removed if all in agreement. Thanks.Harryurz 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What if one rewrote the sentence somewhat and added the fact that the planes were used for different roles? But I agree about the Merlin part, there were "never" a lack of planes, only trained pilots-- How would this work?: "Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires. Instead the Defiants saw action as night fighters, and the Battles were held ready to attack the German invasion fleet." At least it gives a reason for them not being scrapped. Abel29a 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)