Talk:Avro Anson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

The map[edit]

I notice that while the Royal Indian Air Force is included in the 'Operators' section, India is not covered in the 'Military operators' map. Is there any particular reason for this discrepancy and are there any others that I've missed? RASAM (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref does not support statment in the article[edit]

In the section Operational history it says "In June 1940, a flight of three Ansons was attacked by nine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Remarkably, before the dogfight ended, the Ansons destroyed two German aircraft and damaged a third without losing any of their own." The article then references http://www.warbirdalley.com/anson.htm as the source of this. However, on going to this site, what is said there is this: "During the evacuation of British and French forces from Dunkirk, for instance, one of a group of Ansons pressed into service to protect the beleaguered troops was attacked by 10 Messerschmitts, shooting down two and damaging a third before the "dogfight" ended."

The question is, how does "one of a group of Ansons" become "three", and less intriguingly, how do "10 [unspecified] Messerschmitts", become "nine... Bf 109s"?

The other is whether the site is suitable as a reference?

So, is it a case of changing the article to match what's said in the referenced pub., or just deleting the story and ref. altogether? Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other sources confirm that P/O Peters was in command of one of three Ansons on patrol over Dunkirk attacked by nine Bf 109s, downing one by a forward firing machine gun and one by the turret gunner, claiming another as "damaged". See: Ashworth, Chris. RAF Coastal Command 1936-1969 (1992), p. 27 Bowyer, Chaz. Coastal Command at War (1979), pp. 27–28. Brooks, Robin J. "Kent’s Own" Aeroplane, September 2011, p. 37. Franks, Norman. Air Battle Dunkirk 26 May–3 June 1940 (2000), pp. 125, 181. McNeill, Ross. Royal Air Force Coastal Command Losses of the Second World War, Vol. l Aircraft and Crew Losses 1939-1941 (2003), p. 34. Prien, Jochen et al. Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945 Teil 3, pp. 181, 187, 189. Shores, Chrisopher et al. Fledgling Eagles (1991), p. 106 Sturtivant, Ray. "Avro Anson: The Chronicles of 'Faithful Annie'” Air Enthusiast Forty-two (1991), p. 43. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nine or 10 Bf 109s is a bit of a question as the RAF report was nine while the German records indicate an attack and downing of a Bristol Blenheim on a day when no Blenheims were brought down. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, just the wrong ref. then. Thought someone would be able to solve. Still not quite sure why the article says "three" if the sources say "one of three".
Interesting, though, that there're no more nearly contemporary secondary sources in that list, unless the German one is (Ich spreche kein Deutsch). Just wondering if there's an argument for a ref. to the primary RAF source to which you allude: this particular incident appearing to be quite so statistically anomalous. That's not meant to be questioning its veracity or verisimilitude: it's always the statistically anamolous actions that are the most interesting, which is why I went to look at the ref originally given.

I assume P/O Peters was at least MiD. IWC, perhaps, the greater detail you give is worthy of inclusion. Don’t quite get the connection between the question of nine or ten Bfs and the Blenheim, though. Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There was some disparity between the RAF accounts which seemed to settle on the number of nine BF 109s engaged and while the German reports may lend some validity and are usually accurate, the mis-identification of the Ansons as well as a false claim of a Blenheim being downed tends to make the enemy report highly doubtful. It appears that all of the Anson flight was attacked but that one Anson made quite a spirited defense which, as you say, was not a typical engagement as the Anson was generally relegated to second-line duties as mentioned in the passage. The inclusion of this particular incident appears to be used to show that the Anson could be effective in combat although likely it would have suffered the same fate as other types such as the Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim that were decimated by the Luftwaffe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)