Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Britain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
found a source
accord to The Battle of Britain A German Perspective Lt Col Earle Lund, USAF Joint Doctrine Air Campaign Course Campaign Analysis Study 24 January 1996
the strenght versus the british island at 10 august 1940 were Luftflotten 2 and 3: strenghts (operational)
406 Ju87 (316)
282 Me110 (227)
813 Me109 (702)
Luftflotte 5: (he not count the 109 because this from norway can't fight over great britain)
138 He111 and Ju88 (123)
37 Me110 (34)
i hope finally you change the statement that show all luftwaffe was engaged in BoB (in side table) --79.55.34.42 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Battle Categories
France, Poland, Czechoslovakia. Why? Not based on their national's being part of the RAF, otherwise we need to include Ireland, South Africa, USA, Canada and Israel. Removed per WP:Bold. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for playing! So your are basically denying non-British formations took part in the battle! Fine. Then explain Battle of Britain battle honours of Polish and Czechoslovakian squadrons (e.g. No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron). If their countries were not involved, how could they take part in the battle?
- I am well aware of the fact, that they were fighting alongside the British in the RAF, but their allegiance was always to their countries of origin (except maybe for the American and Irish pilots). The WWII RAF wasn't the foreign legion! Best --Dodo19 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with not including the categories - individuals may have been involved but not countries. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I might be mistaken, but are not always individuals fighting in battles for their country? --Dodo19 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with not including the categories - individuals may have been involved but not countries. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I’m not saying any of those things or denying the participation of the E. European squadrons. The categories removed related to battles involving Poland and Czechoslovakia due to the occupied status of those lands in 1940. Leaky Caldron 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I must have my geography wrong then, as Tobruk wasn't in Czechoslovakia last time I checked.--Dodo19 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the logic here, neither France nor Germany is where the Battle of Britain was fought, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
- Shall we remove Germany and the United Kingdom from the Battle of Ypres article then since that battle was fouhgt in neither country? --Dodo19 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the logic here, neither France nor Germany is where the Battle of Britain was fought, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
- Why don't you AGF, stop making pointy comments that simply make you look foolish and find a supportable reason for including those nations who at the time were occupied and therefore could not have been considered as participatory allied forces? This has nothing to do with territory. Leaky Caldron 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
NB: This is about participants not territory or status thereof. WRT the status of Polish, Czechosloak etc forces:
Prime Minister to General Ismay, 12.VII.1940 [...] It is the settled policy of His Majesty's Government to make good strong French contingents for land, sea, and air service, to encourage these men to volunteer to fight on with us, to look after them well, to indulge their sentiments about the French flag, etc., and to have them as representatives of a France which is continuing the war. It is the duty of the Chiefs of Staff to carry out this policy effectively.
The same principles also applies to Poles, Dutch, Czech, and Belgian contingents in this country, as well as to the Foreign Legion of anti-Nazi Germany.— Winston Churchill, Their Finest Hour, p. 507
--Dodo19 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- All Allied forces fought in the Battle of Britain as part of the RAF, being integrated into RAF squadrons with the RAF retaining operational control. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
Order of Battle
The author of this article has made an error in stating that the only independent participant from the Commonwealth forces was the RAF. The Royal Canadian Air Force, formed in 1924, joined this battle on August 15th, 1940. No 1 Squadron of the RCAF was the first squadron to see combat. Other Canadian pilots had seen previous experience in other theatres under RAF command prior to this battle. It is also important to note that Canada was a separate belligerent during the war, having made its' declaration of war to Germany 2 days after that of Britain and France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.142.150 (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to take a look through the archive, there was an extensive discussion on this very issue a few months back.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- The RCN did not fight as a part of the RN, despite being under British operational control in certain areas. The Canadian Army units that were under British operational control until the creation of the First Canadian Army in 1944 were part of the Canadian Army, not the British Army. There were many individual Canadians fighting as members of the RAF, but 401 Sqn was RCAF, not RAF. They would not have even been there if Canada had not decided to go to war and send them to Britain. This is a fact. In other Wiki articles, cases where units from individual countries fight under British (or any other country's) operational command, they are still acknowledged as belligerents. Why is this article so special?McMuff (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- From /Archive 8#Canadian contribution:
According to the Australian Government site "For its part, Britain was not prepared to let the large numbers of dominion personnel result in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments seeking to influence strategic air policy. The British retained control of command appointments to the Article XV squadrons and of the promotion of dominion personnel serving with the RAF." In other words the RAF maintained control of all operational aspects of the Canadian squadrons; neither the RCAF in Canada nor the the Candaian government could control how and when 1 (RCAF) Sqn was to be used, nor did they have any control over the administrative aspects of how the unit was run, including pay and promotions. This was relaxed AFTER the B of B was well over. The Canadian Army units within the British army, and the RCN were more independent than the Article XV squadrons and comparing them with the Article XV units is like comparing chalk and cheese.
- Hohum 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it? That sentence you quote only says that the RAF had control over command appointments of the Article XV squadrons in order to prevent dominion influence on strategic air policy. However each of the dominions had control over whether they would participate or not. For Canada's part, they were the only dominion to send to Britain a squadron of fighters from their own air force with its own equipment prior to the B of B, to be recognized as have fought in the B of B. It was not formed in Britain and designated as RCAF like other Article XV squadrons, it had a lineage. And you do not include the prior sentence from the page you quote: "Each government wished to retain the capacity to influence the employment of their personnel and ensure they were not simply subsumed into the large British organisation.". For Canada'a part, and the part of Prime Minister King, this was the guiding principle behind their participation in the war. As well, I would like to know exactly how this differed from Canadian Army and RCN units under British Operational Command.McMuff (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't include the entire thread, but I did link to it. You are rehashing what has been said there. Please read it and follow the links to the supporting material. Consensus seemed to be formed.
- "Is it?" - is what, what? Hohum 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it? That sentence you quote only says that the RAF had control over command appointments of the Article XV squadrons in order to prevent dominion influence on strategic air policy. However each of the dominions had control over whether they would participate or not. For Canada's part, they were the only dominion to send to Britain a squadron of fighters from their own air force with its own equipment prior to the B of B, to be recognized as have fought in the B of B. It was not formed in Britain and designated as RCAF like other Article XV squadrons, it had a lineage. And you do not include the prior sentence from the page you quote: "Each government wished to retain the capacity to influence the employment of their personnel and ensure they were not simply subsumed into the large British organisation.". For Canada'a part, and the part of Prime Minister King, this was the guiding principle behind their participation in the war. As well, I would like to know exactly how this differed from Canadian Army and RCN units under British Operational Command.McMuff (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The RCN did not fight as a part of the RN, despite being under British operational control in certain areas. The Canadian Army units that were under British operational control until the creation of the First Canadian Army in 1944 were part of the Canadian Army, not the British Army. There were many individual Canadians fighting as members of the RAF, but 401 Sqn was RCAF, not RAF. They would not have even been there if Canada had not decided to go to war and send them to Britain. This is a fact. In other Wiki articles, cases where units from individual countries fight under British (or any other country's) operational command, they are still acknowledged as belligerents. Why is this article so special?McMuff (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The point about 1(RCAF) Squadron being formed in Canada before being sent to Britain is a valid one; in fact the unit was originally formed in 1937, well before EATS was promulgated (see 1(RCAF) Sqn ). According to this there is no mention of the unit falling under Article XV provisions. The unit, through the Canadian government, provided its own personnel and its own Hurricanes, independently of British sources - this was very similar to 75(NZ) Sqn which was also formed independently of Article XV; once 75 Sqn became a New Zealand unit the NZ government supplied the personnel and the aircraft. The case for 1 Sqn is stronger because it originated in Canada as an RCAF unit from the outset. Presumably the only reason this unit was under the operational control of the RAF was because the Canadian government allowed this to happen - it would be interesting to know where the personnel's pay came from.
- By the look of things the unit did not become an article XV unit until March 1941 when, probably with some administrative changes, it was renumbered 401 Sqn. This is somewhat different to the later Canadian units which fell directly under Article XV provisions from their formation. I think there is a case for acknowledging Canada as a seperate combatant. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)An additional tidbit:
"As related elsewhere in these pages, all three of these first Canadian units found their RCAF aircraft were not up to the latest RAF modification status, and that their oddball configurations made sharing of spares and maintenance resources difficult. Within days of their arrival, all three units began to exchange their RCAF aircraft for RAF owned, RAF serialized, aircraft."
From: [1]. I'm not so sure that overturns Minorhistorian's conclusion though. Hohum 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Appears Canada should be included. I'd guess the swap to RAF a/c was more a supply issue than one of command. Much the same applied to RCN/RN; RN did updates & maintenance for RCN (& RCN for RN, IIRC) as facilities were available. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding Minorhistorians latest edit including some of the information discussed in this thread; It needs reference(s), and its lengthy inclusion in the infobox, which is supposed to be a concise summary, is stylistically unbalancing. I believe it would be better if moved to the notes at the end of the article. Hohum 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now tidied up. Okay, How do we get this article back to GA status? Minorhistorian (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So Canada have now been added; whats the situation around Park and Brand: it would seem they are Kiwi and South African?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- SOP is list them by nationality of service, rather than of birth, no? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is display the flag of their nationality regardless of their service. So the question would be were these two British nationals or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that prior to 1949, people born in New Zealand were British subjects. Hohum 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that suffiently deals with that point then ... although i wouldnt bring it up around people dealing with Freyberg :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that prior to 1949, people born in New Zealand were British subjects. Hohum 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is display the flag of their nationality regardless of their service. So the question would be were these two British nationals or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- SOP is list them by nationality of service, rather than of birth, no? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So Canada have now been added; whats the situation around Park and Brand: it would seem they are Kiwi and South African?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
free french squadron
what doesn't surprise me anymore here is there is only a short phrase to actually tell the british were not fighting alone... only a word about the Free French Squadron 340 "GC ILE DE FRANCE" (GC stands for "groupe de chasse") of the FAFL, using "SPITFIRE MK IX". so what? classical british propaganda. Cliché Online (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. 340 Squadron RAF/GC2 "Île-de-France" was formed on November 7 1941 - too late to take part in the Battle. As far as I recall, only thirteen individual Free French airmen were awarded the Battle of Britain Clasp, for combat service with several British squadrons. BTW Spitfire Mk. IX production started in June 1942 or so. --ja_62 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- yep seems you're right, -i meant "XI" which is even later- check this french defense ministry article. they said they fought the battle of england.... Cliché Online (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- were they refering to a former french group or a later battle of britain ? Cliché Online (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- you there?, watch this video (free french propaganda newsreel also claiming the free french pilots fought the battle of britain. Cliché Online (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- the first french pilots were in RAF Squadron 615 & 132 as said here. Cliché Online (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Individual airmen fought as part of RAF squadrons, as did pilots of many nationalities. See the discussion about Canada above for discussions on the degree to which national airforcesactually took part, for the most part the squadrons manned almost entirely by other nationalities had been place entirely under RAF control, Dominoin governments, or governments in exile for the occupied countries had no say as to how these squadrons were employed, the RAF was entirely responsiblefor the direction of the battle. David Underdown (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- yep seems you're right, -i meant "XI" which is even later- check this french defense ministry article. they said they fought the battle of england.... Cliché Online (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to point out, there is an article Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Information about the French participants in the battle belongs there. --Shimbo (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for the tips David and Shimbo. Cliché Online (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
different historian different opinions
why is bungay the orthodox view, i guess many british historians exgarate the impact of the battle of britian. after this battle from which the "lufwaffe never recovered", the luftwaffe dominated big parts of europe! can someone explain to me why bungay is the orthodox view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- This "the British view of the battle" versus the "Germans view is" has been thrashed out ad nauseum in previous "discussions". One reason this article has not advanced is because there is so much bickering over these POVs (read the section on "Divisions amongst Historians - the "discussion" surrounding this is archived here); is it really worth starting up the whole process again?? Bungay happens to be a good source of information because he has thoroughly researched the topic and is a good writer. BTW If people don't like this article why not start up a "Battle of Britain alternative veiwpoint" article and leave this one in peace? Minorhistorian (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
if this is discussed before why bungay is the orthodox view?
- "ne reason this article has not advanced is because there is so much bickering over these POVs "
maybe because its the british POV???? Blablaaa (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your question was answered. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not making vague accusations which are inflammatory. (Hohum @) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem he has seems to be not with the statement itself or the different POVs, he just wants to know why of all views this one is presented as the "orthodox" one, which seems to imply that this view is somewhat more "true" than the others. Its just a question of the wording. StoneProphet (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
yep, i want to know why the article tells the reader what is likly correct. i ask why is this bungay ? who said he bungay has the "normal" opinion Blablaaa (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you focused on Bungay? You seem to be ignoring at least 10 others. Terraine uses Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe and Klee (both German) to state the outcome. Claims of British POV is also silly. Just looking at the German article enables me to make the exact same accusation. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
again i dont say one is wrong or the other is correct. but the article tells the reader what a correct opinions and which are exotic. and even if hundred german are cited for the claim of the destruction of the luftwaffe. in my opinion it is stupid and when a historin claims this than maybe he is stupid too. when the luftwaffe was destroyed than the RAF was it too.... simple , isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I traced the edit where Bungay was couched as the orthodox view. It seemed to be a thowaway edit which tried to rewrite even clumsier phrasing. A recent edit has changed it from orthodox to "conservative British". I have pared attribution back even further - it's Bungay's own opinion, and I don't see any citations to support that he's reflecting a wider group - he may be - but it isn't cited. (Hohum @) 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why not look at the rest of the passage in which it appears as his view is clearly the reflection of the majority of British historians. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC).
- "Terraine uses Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe and Klee (both German) to state the outcome." - it should be noted that the conclusions Terraine allegedly claims to originate Kreipe and Klee is very different from what for example Klee actually states in his work. I agree about the wording being unlucky - somehow it needs to be made clear for the reader that there are different schools of this even in Britain, and Bungay is definitely one that represents the 'old school' conservative historian's view about the Battle only, who's views have been challanged not only abroad, but also in Britain. Kurfürst (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
interesting that british historians seem to have a consistent opinion while not british tend to have another. legal issues : i didnt read the opinion i only commented the statement above^^ . @hohum, when its chenged already then its ok... Blablaaa (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Both irrelevant. This is not a forum for negative revisionism and erroneous accusations agaisnt a well-known and respected historian by some anon off the internet. And the result is main stream consensus. An attempt to introduce this slight (fringe) opinion is inappropriate. That is all I have to say here. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
what is the main stream consensus? the destruction of the luftwaffe which scored another 50.000 victories after its destruction? Blablaaa (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Once again this "conversation" is simply reiterating some old POVs which have been around since the battle itself. Read the above: "Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments and look in the archives 'before' starting a discussion." Simply regurgitating opinions which will never be reconciled, either here or in the article itself is a total waste of time. No wonder the article has been downgraded from a GA to a B.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
maybe it was donwgraded because the article claims the destruction of the luftwaffe :-) Blablaaa (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons for the delisting are given here. They were mostly about lack of references and some POV / unencyclopedic prose. However, it was two years ago.
- Unless we have a source to say that someone's opinion reflects a group, it shouldn't be said in the article. But we can give a representative spread of opinions from various reliable sources. :Personally, think the section about the dispute about whether the Luftwaffe was irreparably thrown into a downward spiral by the BoB has too much weight in the article anyway - it seems to make a mountain of that molehill to justify the space to debunk it again. Also, it wavers into the territory of whether the BoB was a victory or not - with the strangely inconsistent and meandering quote from Willmott (whose full source is missing from the article). He manages to say the BoB was of little significance, had minor practical effect, was won by the British, was decisive, and ensured Britain's survival - all in one paragraph! Who is he representing? Bipolar historians? ;) (Hohum @) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Unless we have a source to say that someone's opinion reflects a group, it shouldn't be said in the article." How is this supposed to work? Does this mean that we now have to cite several historians to prove that a statement is the opinion of a group of historians and not just one? Can you, or anyone else, confirm this is in the Wikipedia guidelines?
- The section on Divisions amongst historians IMHO adds nothing useful or enlightening to the article, except to show that there is, er, evidence of several different opinions on the significance and outcome of the B of B amongst historians; or is it there to reflect the POVs of various editors ;) ? Minorhistorian (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies are pretty clear. Don't include something if a reliable source doesn't say it WP:V, WP:RELIABLE Don't do original research or synthesise WP:OR.
- This is somewhat blended with editors reaching consensus about what should be in an article - but I would suggest considering why we might feel the need to say an author is reflecting a particular group's opinion... are we just trying to bolster that groups opinion to reflect our own POV? - or to group together historians of the same nationality in order to create the idea of a national conspiracy in the mind of potential readers of the article?
- We're supposed to reflect the content of reliable sources, weighted "reasonably" depending on factors like whether a particular source is more well respected by its peers (i.e. other sources - not wikipedia editors).
- Now - there are differences between historians on whether the BoB signalled a downward spiral for the Luftwaffe - and the article should reflect that, IMO - but in a focussed way, without meandering. As is, I think it's unfocussed, and bloated. It probably deserves about half the space.
- Currently it uses the style of giving whole quotes - which is lengthy - obviously this has the advantage of showing at least a snippet of what the various historians actually say. An alternative would be to come to acceptable phrasing of what each school of thought says, and give page references - however, this means editors have to reach consensus on the wording - which on contentious matters, can be a problem... (Hohum @) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The reason for this style of citations and quotes was because of the constant sniping over word choices and interpretations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
Mapower losses of Bomber and Coastal Command
It appears that the article box lists the aircraft losses of Fighter, Bomber, and Coastal Commands, but not the manpower losses of the latter two commands. Does anybody have information on that? Maybe Hastings? Kurfürst (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think I do. Losses were not that great. I'll look. I think it was about 100. Dapi89 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great if you could add some of it. Wood and Dempster gives aircraft losses for the Bombers on page 313 in their book - 367 Cat. 3 ie. destroyed, and 116 Cat. 2 ie. seriously damaged - for the July-October period, but unfortunately no crew losses. Sadly enough, most books only concentrate on Fighter Command, while Bomber Command operations in the same period are almost totally neglected! Kurfürst (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Terraine Right of the Line: 118 BC aircraft/ 130 CC aircraft. 718 BC and 280 CC aircrew = 998 - higher than i thought. They are listed on the offical BoB memorial at Westminster Abbey. Dapi89 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The heaviest BC casualty rates were in the Blenhiem units which, on several missions, suffered 50+% casualties because they continued to be sent out on daylight operations. A raid of 12 Blenhiems to Norway in August netted a casualty rate of 91.7% counting one Blenheim which turned back well before reaching Norway the 11 which continued were all shot down. A tragic waste of life. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Even more, if you consider Dizzy Allen's proposal: they could've bombed German airbases in France, which were crowded with aircraft, & potentially have shattered the Luftwaffe in 1940. The losses might have been awful, but the result would have been worth it, unliike the (frankly) stupid missions they did get sent on. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not entirely fair. The German losses in landing craft were high. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- The heaviest BC casualty rates were in the Blenhiem units which, on several missions, suffered 50+% casualties because they continued to be sent out on daylight operations. A raid of 12 Blenhiems to Norway in August netted a casualty rate of 91.7% counting one Blenheim which turned back well before reaching Norway the 11 which continued were all shot down. A tragic waste of life. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Dizzy" Allan had a lot of opinions, many of which have long been debunked. The Blenheims did attack German airfields and often took suicidal casualty rates with little result; for one German airfields were well defended by the numerous mobile light flak units that followed and protected the invasion forces (of the 11 Blenhiems that attacked a Norwegian airfield (as mentioned above) five were shot down by flak, six by fighters). Blenheims were particularly vulnerable to flak, even when their fuel tanks were finally protected by self-sealing liners. They were also vulnerable to fighters. Secondly the German aircraft were well dispersed and often well camouflaged. Thirdly the Luftwaffe was well spread out over a large number of airfields; as the Luftwaffe discovered even knocking one airfield out of commission, as they did with Manston, required a sustained effort. The Blenheims had a pitifully small bombload and most RAF bombs (many dating from WW 1 in 1940) failed to explode when dropped from low altitude; this was the only altitude at which the Blenheims stood even a small chance although it brought them into the ideal range for light flak. Unfortunately, however courageous the crews, the Blenheims simply weren't up to fulfilling Allan's ideal scenario. Several hundred Mosquitoes would have been invaluable. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will bow to the better informed. ;D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Dizzy" Allan had a lot of opinions, many of which have long been debunked. The Blenheims did attack German airfields and often took suicidal casualty rates with little result; for one German airfields were well defended by the numerous mobile light flak units that followed and protected the invasion forces (of the 11 Blenhiems that attacked a Norwegian airfield (as mentioned above) five were shot down by flak, six by fighters). Blenheims were particularly vulnerable to flak, even when their fuel tanks were finally protected by self-sealing liners. They were also vulnerable to fighters. Secondly the German aircraft were well dispersed and often well camouflaged. Thirdly the Luftwaffe was well spread out over a large number of airfields; as the Luftwaffe discovered even knocking one airfield out of commission, as they did with Manston, required a sustained effort. The Blenheims had a pitifully small bombload and most RAF bombs (many dating from WW 1 in 1940) failed to explode when dropped from low altitude; this was the only altitude at which the Blenheims stood even a small chance although it brought them into the ideal range for light flak. Unfortunately, however courageous the crews, the Blenheims simply weren't up to fulfilling Allan's ideal scenario. Several hundred Mosquitoes would have been invaluable. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I found lots of information in; Warner, G. The Bristol Blenheim: A Complete History. London: Crécy Publishing, 2nd edition 2005. ISBN 0-85979-101-7 : it is the most complete book on the development and career of the Blenheim now available. There was nothing wrong with the Blenheim as an aircraft (apart from a bad cockpit layout), and it was great to fly; the trouble was that it was not designed to cope with modern warfare as introduced by the Germans. Anyway, to the original question about BC casualties, unfortunately Blenheim crews probably made up a good proportion of the 718 aircrew. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thx. My impression is, aside from being a bit underpowered, there was nothing wrong with the Blenheim a less half-assed tactical doctrine wouldn't've fixed. That, or some less brainless targeting & scheduling. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura
- Well essentially it had no serious bombload to speak of, and the speed was no longer enough to evade monoplane interceptors, while the defensive firepower was marginal as well. However nice it was in its original concept, or in general as an airplane, it was simply hopelessly outclassed. That is not to say they did not destroy a number of LW aircraft on the ground. IMHO Bomber Command's operation during the Battle of Britain are much neglected, and would well deserve an own article. Kurfürst (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Luftwaffe bombs airfields; worst case figures?
Several sets of statistics dealing with casualty rates/combat losses etc have been added to the section on the Luftwaffe bombing airfields. This is becoming confusing and hard to read as, once again different authors and different sets of statistics are quoted to bolster different perspectives. In regards to the set of figures by Woods and Dempster (295 fighters lost with 171 damaged 24 August-5 September); these are way out of kilter with Ramsay 1989 which lists, in detail, 244 destroyed and 159 damaged through ALL causes for the same period (pp 375-420). Not forgetting that W & D's production figures do not take into account those fighters which had been built just prior to August 24 but not yet issued from MUs; nor do they take into account RAF reserves. It would seem that W & D are quoted because they portray a worst-case scenario, suggesting Fighter Command was facing a crisis; this quote could, in turn be refuted by adding the numbers listed by Ramsay. How does one reconcile these differences? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The first thing needs to be cleared is what types of aircraft does Ramsay account for - is it include all fighter types, or there's some creativeness involved with the numbers - ie. not counting certain fighter types, not counting but only the ones lost in the air and so on. My take is Ramsay only accounts for single Hurris and Spits, but not Blenheims and Defiants, and he may not account for the aircraft lost or written down on the ground due to bombing or in accidents. Still its irrevelant - FC was missing those fighters... Your claims about W & D's not taking into account this and that are baseless and illogical - why would they need to take into account production in previous periods when they don't account for losses for the previous period either..? Or you think there was only "production" in the months preceeding? How do you think Fighter Command grew almost to double the number after the Battle of France, where it lost 400+ fighters? You seem to be arguing the author and simply don't like his conclusions, and would like to overwrite them with your own theories about how things were. And as far as reserves goes, W & D also have figures that, showing that Fighter Command's reserves took a dive and were at about their lowest by late August/early September. This might also have to do with production, which also decreased after the early summer's 'Beaverbrook'-miracle' as a result of the bombing of aircraft factories, and of course that the Germans didn't start the battle proper until Adlertag. Kurfürst (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kurfurst, that is a great way to go about causing trouble. Perhaps you could rephrase some of the wording to be less offensive to Minorhistorian and defensive of one particular source? The fact of the matter, all sources are worthy of inclusion. W & D are no less relaible than Ramsay or Bungay. Bottom line: Historians ALWAYS quote different numbers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kurfurst obviously doesn't know a thing about Ramsay's book and his "My take" is completely erroneous; Ramsay provides a day by day listing of all aircraft types shot down or damaged in the air or damaged or destroyed on the ground, whether by the enemy or through accidents (Kf conveniently ignored the phrase "ALL causes"). Each individual entry for each individual aircraft describes, where possible, the circumstances, time of day, unit of aircraft, fate of pilot/aircrew, fate of aircraft, serial number and/or code letters. The entire losses/damages section for the RAF is 214 pages long; a separate section is also included for the Luftwaffe. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"over 9,000" vandalism
During the last year, or so, there has been a considerable amount of vandalism substituting "over 9,000" (or similar) for numbers or words. This article uses the number 9,000 and the words "over 9,000". The number appears valid, but the original statement was "about 9,000". It was replaced by "over 9,000" on 11:08, February 26, 2009 by Kinko tibbar, who was blocked due to vandalism on April 28, 2009. I have changed it back to "about 9,000". Someone more familiar with the subject should verify this number. The original information was added on 01:44, April 5, 2008 by Mrg3105, who is also blocked. Makyen (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Great Article- One Tiny Point
I think their is a strong case for adding Adolf Hitler to the German Commanders box, given his overbearing inteferance with all things military, and habit of issuing operational orders to troops and airmen, even when they made little stratigic sense- thoughts anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.250.112 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Confusions
I found a couple points confusing:
"Overall, by 2 November, the figure was 1,796..." This is the first sentence of a paragraph, and it isn't clear what the "figure" refers to. British? German? fighters? pilots? destroyed/ killed? remaining? total?
"the RAF claimed 2,698 kills (against 1,023 fighters lost to all causes), while the Luftwaffe fighters claimed 3,198 RAF aircraft downed (against losses of 873 fighters and 1,214 bombers)" In this case, I'm not sure what the "against" figures are; are these what the *real* losses (as opposed to claims) were, i.e. the Germans actually lost 1023 fighters? Or are these their own losses, i.e. the RAF claimed they lost (and presumably actually did lose) 1023 fighters? Similarly for the Luftwaffe.
I think I can figure out what was meant in both cases, but it takes a lot of puzzling it out. Perhaps someone who knows (as opposed to my guessing) can clarify? Mcswell (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good catch. I couldn't figure out what the 1796 referred to, either. Somebody? Also, I noticed a misspelled "strength" in the Overy quote. Was that in the original? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Infobox
how can editors who know wikipedia and their rules, make 10 notes behind the victory? sorry for everyone its clear what the reason for this is.... Blablaaa (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- And the article brings historians with different facts and opinions about the outcome while the infobox tries to imply that the "decisive victory" is absolute fact Blablaaa (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Combatants idea...
Hi! We must remember that Battle for Britain is very sensitive topic on history of such countries like Poland, Czech and is symbol of their commitment to WW2, and lack of their notes are deprecation of their efforts. So what do you think, to put instead of Great Britain, a one icon: RAF, with expandable list of countries which had their soldiers. I think it is best compromise, because if we are taking sovereignty and political issues as main criteria for listing combatants we must change all other articles in Wikipedia of WW2 (for example: Narvik, Tobruk, Cassino, Berlin etc.),where multinational units were fighting alongside main Allies countries, and under their command(especially Poland, Czechs, Free French and British Colonies). Consistency between all WW2's articles is our main goal. Sorry for my mistakes in English...i'm still learning ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OGUREK (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This topic has been beaten to death already; the Allied forces fought as a part of the RAF not as independent units. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- So i think best compromise is adding RAF to belligerents with expandable list of countries who's commit pilots, because now it's look like only Brits and Canadians fought. Take for example 303rd Polish SQN, it was created total with Polish personel, was created under Polish-British Agreement, and being under orders of RAF was only for political and practical reasons (1HQ, 1 scheme of organisation etc. you know what i mean), if we are taking sovereignty as a main criteria, we should change all other articles from WW2, where volunteers from all over world fought under British flag.OGUREK (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is still not workable. Find a consensus first before proposing a major change to the article that is not supported by others. FWiW, the No. 303, No. 1 RCAF and other units operated under RAF control. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is already an article dealing with other nations' participation. See: Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. FWiW 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC).
- This is still not workable. Find a consensus first before proposing a major change to the article that is not supported by others. FWiW, the No. 303, No. 1 RCAF and other units operated under RAF control. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- So i think best compromise is adding RAF to belligerents with expandable list of countries who's commit pilots, because now it's look like only Brits and Canadians fought. Take for example 303rd Polish SQN, it was created total with Polish personel, was created under Polish-British Agreement, and being under orders of RAF was only for political and practical reasons (1HQ, 1 scheme of organisation etc. you know what i mean), if we are taking sovereignty as a main criteria, we should change all other articles from WW2, where volunteers from all over world fought under British flag.OGUREK (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Name of the battle in German - should be included?
Recently registered user Westbrabander engaged this afternoon in removing name fo the battle in German language with various untrue edit summaries - i.e. referring to non-existent "toolbox" and "languages" section making German name in intro supposedly supernumerary. I reverted to the last consensus version (and undid edit name which is not actually used in German), but I'm surely open for discussion if other editors would express the same opinion of unnecessity of German name of the battle (AFAIK name of the battle in languages of major combatants is something of a standard on Wikipedia). Thank you for your ideas. --ja_62 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's been usual practise here, & offering translation does no harm AFAI can see. Leave it in. I'd also be interested to know why not keep it. (OT, I think he meant "infobox".) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- The German translation of the English name should not be in the lead section. If people want to know the translation of "Battle of Britain" in German, they can easily put their cursor over the 'languages' sidebox. If the German included in the lead would be the German name of the operation to achieve air superiority of Britain (the existence of which I'm unaware of; but it's not "Luftslacht um England") then I would support that; but not the German translation of the English term. Westbrabander (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- You had been explained what interwiki links are for, hadn't you?--ja_62 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- As for the term - Luftschlacht um England is 1) traditional designation of the battle in German, 2) is not a translation of English name (see: England x Britain), 3) is precisely the name you've just suggested people to put cursor on. What is your real problem? --ja_62 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please adjust your tone. I am not a dog. Also, please refrain from linking to 'official' Wikipedia guidelines and presenting them as supporting your point, eventhough in reality they do not. Thank you. Adding; you seem to think my objections have somthing to do with incorrectly translating "England" with "Britain", this not the case. Please read more carefully. My objections are that "Luftslacht um England" is a calque of the English term; not the name of the German operation; which would be acceptable to include in the article. Translations belong to Wiktionary or the language box. Westbrabander (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't say you are one.
- I will do, as they are supporting. You are trying to remove name of the battle in language of one of the major combatants, which is also contrary to the neutral point of view.
- Luftschlacht um England is certainly not a calque of Battle of Britain. Have you any sources proving your claim?
- Couldn't you present your problem on German Wikipedia? Obviously they are gravely wrong, as they are using you alleged incorrect 'calque' as title of the article. Just try put your cursor.--ja_62 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I see from your reply that my suspicions were correct. You do not seem to understand my problems with the inclusion of a German caption in its present form. Please re-read my comments.Westbrabander (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've read them. Please do explain what your objections against including German name are based upon? You started with suggestion that if German name would be included, than other language variants would have to be included too, then you sidestepped into repeated references to nonexistent sections of the article, the you came with your opinion that "Luftschlacht um England" is actually the calque of "Battle of Britain". What your problems with the inclusion of a German caption are in its present form?--ja_62 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I see from your reply that my suspicions were correct. You do not seem to understand my problems with the inclusion of a German caption in its present form. Please re-read my comments.Westbrabander (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please adjust your tone. I am not a dog. Also, please refrain from linking to 'official' Wikipedia guidelines and presenting them as supporting your point, eventhough in reality they do not. Thank you. Adding; you seem to think my objections have somthing to do with incorrectly translating "England" with "Britain", this not the case. Please read more carefully. My objections are that "Luftslacht um England" is a calque of the English term; not the name of the German operation; which would be acceptable to include in the article. Translations belong to Wiktionary or the language box. Westbrabander (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- The German translation of the English name should not be in the lead section. If people want to know the translation of "Battle of Britain" in German, they can easily put their cursor over the 'languages' sidebox. If the German included in the lead would be the German name of the operation to achieve air superiority of Britain (the existence of which I'm unaware of; but it's not "Luftslacht um England") then I would support that; but not the German translation of the English term. Westbrabander (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
My two cents: If the term is the correct name that the Germans give to the battle, then leave it in. If it is wrong - adjust it; i dont see why it should not be included.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- If Westbrabander claims the Lufschlacht um England is not correct, he should be also able to prove his point. What he does do (now, he was removing with other rationales, i.e. "toolbox" etc.) he is repeating here "Luftschlacht um England is incorrect, remove it" but still hadn't produced any source proving his point, while German Wikipedia uses Luftschlacht um England, regardless whether in sense of "[the] Air battle of England" or "[an] air battle of England". OR?--ja_62 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I say keep the German name, but it should not get such prominent placement as the first sentence, especially since the first three sentences discuss the specific English name of the battle. How about following Churchill's quote? Something like:
The name derives from a famous speech delivered by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the House of Commons: "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." In Germany, the battle was called Luftschlacht um England (Air battle of England) or Luftschlacht um Großbritannien (Air battle of Great Britain).
- My two cents. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would do rather nicely.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think Bink's got it (except it's a trifle wordy for my liking ;p). I don't see any reason Westbrabander is objecting, beyong stating "it's wrong". FWIW, it appears it's a reference to Adler Tag. Am I mistaken? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would do rather nicely.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
B of B aircraft
Hi, interesting article, but I spotted one thing of note - which in no way detracts from the author as it reflects a widely held but inaccurate view of the different aircraft. The article claims the Me 109 could not out turn the Spitfire. I have seen film footage of Douglas Bahder saying this so he truly believed it to be true as a pilot. In Len Deightons book Fighter it makes it clear that the Me 109 could out turn the Spitfire. The real difference was that the elliptical wing of the Spitfire meant that if too tight a turn was pulled the outer wing stalled before inner, forcing it to even out a little in to a shallower turn, while its multiple box main spar acted as a leaf spring giving it both flexibility and strength so it could handle the tightest turn it was able. By contrast, the single main spar of the Me 109 simply sheared if it went too tight - meaning it wasn't who could pull the tightest turn, but who would dare. In an epic battle- sometimes called the battle of the two Adolf's, Adolf 'sailor'Milan versus Adolf Galland, Spitfire versus 109, neither could get an advantage, and after they had run out of ammunition, they saluted each other and both flew back to their respective bases, knowing they had met their match.
Tim Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.72.49 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, you cannot believe everything Len Deighton wrote (for example, he also maintained in Fighter that the 109E had a cannon firing through the propeller spinner; long since disproven); as explained in Aircraft of the Battle of Britain some Spitfire pilots failed to use the smaller turning circle of the Spitfire for fear that the wings would fall off, hence some German pilots convinced themselves that the 109 could turn tighter, nor is there any evidence that the wings of the 109 would shear if the pilot turned too tightly. Have you got any evidence of what you say, aside from Deighton? Nor can you take one or two actions as being definitive; there were plenty of other pilots with plenty of experience who either flew in combat, or tested the Spitfire against the 109, and they were always able to out-turn the 109, no matter how much the 109 pilot tried eg; R S Tuck, who tested both aircraft at Boscombe Down, Geoffrey Quill Supermarine's chief test pilot and others. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Too many notes to make one point?
In the information box pertaining to "Decisive British Victory" we have no less than seven notes quoting different historians. This too me is "overkill"; surely all that is needed is ONE note stating that the listed historians agree with the BofB being a British victory. The section on "Divisions Amongst Historians" is also overkill - as long as history has been written Historians have been divided as to whether such and such a battle was decisive - again all that is needed is a note stating that these historians agree, while these historians disagree with this POV.
I know how much acrimonious "discussion" has taken place over these issues but, putting it bluntly, all that has happened is that this article has become one to avoid, and it continues to languish in category B, while for the general reader it continues to look like a battleground. How about having an article that concentrates on narrating the events of the Battle itself, with much of the background information (eg Strategy and Tactics) being developed into another article? Minorhistorian (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that there isn't much division that it was a decisive victory, but there is division on how badly affected the Luftwaffe was for the rest of the war. Which the article currently reflects - perhaps, I agree, with too much focus on the latter. To some editors, for the Luftwaffe to have been decisively defeated, they must have been "destroyed" (rather than just discontinuing the battle) - this has been their personal synthesis, and not the conclusion of sources - to my knowledge no sources have been offered to contradict a decisive victory.
- To avoid uninformed POV editors from repeatedly changing the decisive victory entry, a number of reliable references have been added to support it. It hardly detracts from the article to have a few small numbers in brackets in an infobox, and removing them will likely invite restarting the cycle again. Compounding them all into one reference, is in my view; stylistically poor, and more difficult to maintain.
- Certainly, there is much that can be done to improve the article, and your final suggestion sounds good. (Hohum @)
- My $0.02? Mention there's broad agreement on "decisive" is needed, & perhaps some clarification of its meaning in context (i.e., Luftwaffe lost & didn't come back). Esthetically, I'm with Minor, put all the sources in a single fn, since it's on a common subject. (That appears not to be WP SOP, however.) As to expanding the strategy & tactics elsewhere, agree, with the proviso it not be chopped back too radically here; IMO, understanding the Battle depends on grasping at least some of the nuances: why the CHL was useful, how the Sector Stations fit in, fuel & SAR & replacements, even (arguably) the disadvantage FC suffered not using finger-four. Do they all need to be explained in excruciating detail? No, just mentioned. (I'm not suggesting this is a laundry list of minimums, just illustrative.) I wouldn't think it was good if it got cut back to "Luftwaffe bombed radar sites & fighter stations, FC Spitfires & Hurricanes fought them off, the Germans began bombing London, & England lived happily every after"...OK, gross oversimplification, but let's not avoid detail too much in the name of ease of understanding, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since people are now weighing in on this contentious subject, this topic may be a segregated to a separate article, which can leave all the various sources in place and link to this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC).
- My $0.02? Mention there's broad agreement on "decisive" is needed, & perhaps some clarification of its meaning in context (i.e., Luftwaffe lost & didn't come back). Esthetically, I'm with Minor, put all the sources in a single fn, since it's on a common subject. (That appears not to be WP SOP, however.) As to expanding the strategy & tactics elsewhere, agree, with the proviso it not be chopped back too radically here; IMO, understanding the Battle depends on grasping at least some of the nuances: why the CHL was useful, how the Sector Stations fit in, fuel & SAR & replacements, even (arguably) the disadvantage FC suffered not using finger-four. Do they all need to be explained in excruciating detail? No, just mentioned. (I'm not suggesting this is a laundry list of minimums, just illustrative.) I wouldn't think it was good if it got cut back to "Luftwaffe bombed radar sites & fighter stations, FC Spitfires & Hurricanes fought them off, the Germans began bombing London, & England lived happily every after"...OK, gross oversimplification, but let's not avoid detail too much in the name of ease of understanding, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Concentrating on the info box: How many quotes from historians are needed to make a point? Take a look at the layout of the notes attached to "Decisive British Victory"; we have a quote from Terrain citing General Kriepe followed by a Schulman cite. Why is Shulman there?
- Shulman is followed by a quote from Bungay. After Bungay is another quote from Hough and Richards. Then comes a cite from Overy who is actually citing Addison and Crang who, in turn, are quoting A J P Taylor, all of which is followed by a Deighton cite. Why is Deighton cited?
- After Deighton are quotes from Keegan, then Buell followed by cites from Terraine and Shirer. After Shirer is a direct quote by A J P Taylor then (finally) another quote from Bungay citing Middleton.
- How messy and confusing is this? Do we really need all of these quotes? Why not simplify the whole issue by using one quote and list the other authors or simply stick to one quote and drop the others?
- From memory this happened because of one editor who did nothing but start the argument on the discussion page; he then made one amendment to the article and has contributed nothing to Wikipedia since January 2009. How seriously should we take such a "contributer"? I don't believe that a riposte requires all of the effort of using seven quotes.
- A suggested layout could be User:Minorhistorian/Sandbox/; I don't believe that other authors need to be listed, but I left them in to see what it looks like.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's just me, but your sandboxed version seems to confuse the issue more than it clears it up.
- Several editors had repeatedly altered the Decisive Victory entry until the current citation style was introduced. (Hohum @) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Overy is not quoting Crang Minor. He's only in the book. I believe I wrote 'Overy in Crang et al', before it was changed. The long list indicates mass agreement and prevents anyone from dragging up the same old arguments. I do not believe we should have just one person being used to cite the result. Perhaps one note tag leading to the many people who support D.V. Dapi89 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Many historians with same opinions dont indicate mass agreement. Espcially when 95% of them are british and they are judging about a "glorious" british battle. When the leading historians of different countries agree, then we can assume a mass agreement. Blablaaa (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Leading authorities on the BoB tend to be British. Unless you have conflicting views on the decisiveness of the battle from authorities, no matter their nationality, your point has little merit. However, since the current list includes Germans, it has even less. (Hohum @) 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I contested the statement that listing many historians indicates mass agreement. This is indeed wrong. The quality of the historians is important and and also their nationality. And writing one book about the BoB makes NO leading authorities. This is a major problem of wiki.Blablaaa (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like Postmodernist guff to me Bla'. Dapi89 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
cant understand the sentenceBlablaaa (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Now i understand. Whats the guff for u ? that the nationality is important ? that it easy to pick historians with same opinions? wheres the guff ? Blablaaa (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, u are the editor quoting the bungayguy? the guy who explains the "body blow" for the LW ( which was still the strongest airforce in europe ^^ ) , or who explains that the luftwaffe was never as strong relativ to its enemies? LOL.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
and now u deleted all the historians claiming that BoB wasnt so important like british historians explain? :-) Blablaaa (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dapi has removed, (perhaps for rewriting) rightly in my mind, the undue weighted section about divisions among historians - it was almost entirely about differences about how much damage the Luftwaffe sustained - which is beside the point regarding why the BoB is generally considered decisive. It was decisive because the Germans failed to gain air superiority, not because the Luftwaffe was destroyed, or crippled for future operations. (Hohum @) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- This "discussion" has been held many times before and has gotten the article nowhere. It is so easy for Blablaaa to make criticisms based on accusations of national bias because it is a hard accusation to counter without going into yet more endless argument and blather about which authors are more trustworthy - German, British or Martians? Take a look at the archives to see how fraught things got.
- I brought this up in the first place to simply ask why so many notes are needed to make one point and wondering whether there is any way of "streamlining" things a little to make the article more readable (probably not by the look of things) - I was not asking about national bias, and I have no intention of arguing the point here, yet again. If Blablaaa wants to argue the point go back to the archives and add to the "discussion" there. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty easy to counter nonspecific allegations of national bias. They have no merit unless you can prove them, and/or get a source thrown out as unreliable. I doubt that is possible for the ones used. Sadly, it's this kind of generic, unfounded criticism that has led to the use of so many sources where normally one would do. (Hohum @) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have attempted discussion before I did that. But judging by the mood and comments, I thought I had been given the green light to do some chopping and rewriting of the mentioned sections. Dapi89 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
@hohum&Minor U should unterstand what i said, i said : many historians dont indicate mass agreement. Thats all. U want to contest this? U cant... . In my opinion the 10 notes behind DV imply ( thats everything whats count ) how massiv this victory was and how important for the world. And this is disputed, the LW remained strongest airforce and germany always saw their major enemy in the east. And i think everyone knows that the nationality of an historian affects his opinion. Blablaaa (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- and Hohum, many "historians" do exactly what u said, they claim the damage which was inflicted was so hughe and that why it was decisive..... Look the bungayguy ( after reading a bit of him : really bad choice for wiki ) Blablaaa (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the above editor makes these alagations on a somewhat regular basis, unless a British author has wrote a book on the SS he is inclined not to believe a word they have said. It is sad to see the same problem occuring again and again...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- face the point or quit Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Likewise. It seems the major regulars to this article are already sorting out this "issue" whereas you have made numerous comments here (not to mention in other articles) about nationalty; quality of work should not be lambasted because you are an anglophobic (or at least act it) i.e. "wasnt so important like british historians explain", "when 95% of them are british and they are judging about a "glorious" british battle", and "and also their nationality".
- Also you do realise we can see your "deleted" comments, its not my fault you do not want to educate yourself on who people are and rather relay on amazon to explain everything to you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- i deleted my comments not because iam afraid of reaction, i deleted thme because its useless to talk and argue with u. I simply wanted to kill this discussion which seems to evolve again between us. Like u proved in allied warcrimes u act like a troll who searches conversation with me. Here its the same, u dont face the point that 10 notes behind a victory imply a certain degree of importance, no wiki article does this. And its totally uncommon to do this. Iam correct here nothing else. Face the point enigma or go away. And my amazon arguement is a perfect argument because it shows what type of books your prefer and what types of historians. Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your Amazon argument is as pointless as the general point you made on the allied warcrimes article and half the point you are making here; if you are ignorant to who these authors are, explore further than amazon and you will find them to be professors, uni lecturers, members of Sandhurst, military historians and basically experts in their field - nationality has not stopped them from presenting balanced accounts, something to the opposite you have asserted here.
- I wouldn’t flatter yourself either, i dont search you out; you end up popping up on articles, that i have already have watch listed/have worked on/contributed to/aided making ridiculously points ala the nationality argument here. I have not engaged the rest of your argument because it is already being dealt with...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the statement, that 10 notes behind a DV are to much, ridicoulous? lol... . Beeing a prof makes somebody a good historian for writing military books? OMG..... Your criterias apply for millions of people. You only support my opinion about your weird opinion about historians. Only because u introduced off topic: its always better if a author was at the army for along while. Thats why other people prefer Frieser or Glantz for example. Thats why the make better books, books which u can find on amazon. That u dont think this is obvious for me, your source selction shows clearly. Blablaaa (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- This topic is now straying far from its original question. Please stay on topic and leave all the other comments to editor's home talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the statement, that 10 notes behind a DV are to much, ridicoulous? lol... . Beeing a prof makes somebody a good historian for writing military books? OMG..... Your criterias apply for millions of people. You only support my opinion about your weird opinion about historians. Only because u introduced off topic: its always better if a author was at the army for along while. Thats why other people prefer Frieser or Glantz for example. Thats why the make better books, books which u can find on amazon. That u dont think this is obvious for me, your source selction shows clearly. Blablaaa (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- i deleted my comments not because iam afraid of reaction, i deleted thme because its useless to talk and argue with u. I simply wanted to kill this discussion which seems to evolve again between us. Like u proved in allied warcrimes u act like a troll who searches conversation with me. Here its the same, u dont face the point that 10 notes behind a victory imply a certain degree of importance, no wiki article does this. And its totally uncommon to do this. Iam correct here nothing else. Face the point enigma or go away. And my amazon arguement is a perfect argument because it shows what type of books your prefer and what types of historians. Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- face the point or quit Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the above editor makes these alagations on a somewhat regular basis, unless a British author has wrote a book on the SS he is inclined not to believe a word they have said. It is sad to see the same problem occuring again and again...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, enough is enough; if anything this reinforces my point; this article has been virtually wrecked because of the political stance some editors choose to make over which "version" of history is accurate - it has long gone past being worth discussing because such "discussions" always ends up being banal, repetative, and devisive. Few people want to edit this article because it has become an unpleasent chore. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I think the squeaky wheels are in a minority. (Hohum @) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless the fact that u think iam here to cause trouble, 10 notes behind a victory are bad. No good or featured article has 10 notes. That u, after many discussion, found no solution for this issue doesnt speak for u. Instead of finding a solution u attack people who critizise the obvious problem. Blablaaa (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Imho 10 notes simply look unprofessional and childish. My easy suggestion : one note with a statement that many historians support the DV and then a collection of some refs .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any criteria that prevents an article being good or featured because of "too many" reliable references. Please move on to doing something constructive. (Hohum @) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Iam pretty sure style is a crtiteria. Avoid telling me what i should do. ok ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Minor text & markup questions - Galland, Dowding sections
I leave this instead of going ahead with edits of which I'm unsure.
- Under "The Dowding System," is this: "It has been pointed out by that much of the original air defence system...."
Something missing here? Either some source (e.g. "So-and-so has pointed out...") or the sentence should just start with "Much of the..."?
- Same subtopic, "the use Radio Direction Finding...." The words "the use" ought to be replaced with "using" or "the use of"? S'pose I could've just gone ahead and edited that one! :)
- Under "Tactics," there is a quote from Adolf Galland. The quote seems to have the correct double-braces+quote| markup but doesn't appear to indent at many resolutions, because of the left-set picture of Galland (or is that just my Opera browser?). Maybe right-set the picture box?
(Help a discussion newbie--should I click the "minor edit" box when I didn't edit?)
General Usage (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to the General! Don't worry too much about discussing every edit you wish to make - just go ahead and BE BOLD; you will soon find out if there are any problems but, for "newbies", more experienced editors don't bite (mostly). I see no problem with your proposed edits to the article, they make a lot of sense. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Civilian losses
Should the civilian losses be included in the main summary box? There were 20-30,000 civilians killed during the period of the Battle of Britain. It puts the other figures into context, that it wasn't just aircrews that were killed on the Allied side. The civilians were killed by combatants in the battle so should surely be considered as a part of the battle themselves -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Civilian Casualties, Merchant Marine, Naval Casualties during BoB.
I think there needs to be a section included on the direct in theater Material and personnel casualties(sourced) during the 3 month period of the Battle of Britain. I think including this in summary would put it in better context the higher german air losses.
This should maybe be small subsection, but there was more going on during the same time and this has not been discused, only summarized.
Probably the best source would be the UK MOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.208.239.140 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is the current situation not working? Jmlk17 22:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Quartermaster General 6th Battalion returns on 10 August 1940
this is reported as source, quoted in a book, for a fantastic luftwaffe deployement against England, unluky not docs of Quartermaster General 6th Battalion (i think maybe best translate here abteilung with repart or unit) exist for that data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.21.20 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Other countries
You forgeting, that in battle also fought Czechoslovakia, Poland and Usa, and Polish "No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron" shot down the most enemy airplanes. I will add their. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- They've not been forgotten, they're mentioned several times in the article, including a nice photo of a Polish squadron aeroplane marked up with their victories, and in addition the detailed article on Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain is linked from this article. No need to add anything, but if you do want additions made please make proposals on this talk page, giving citations to the sources that support your proposals. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I still think, that respect for them, will be add their to this article, to the "Belligerents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your thoughts lack verification, and are contradicted by sources used in the article. If these other countries had taken part at the time that would have been different, but you're conflating that with individuals joining the RAF. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, this has been discussed time and time again. No disresepect, but they fought as members of the RAFVR, not as air forces of governments in exile. Most importantly, the USA was certainly not a belligerent at this time, as a country it was neutral, some individuals fought, that is all. David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- To Dave Souza: Look for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron
- Absolutely, this has been discussed time and time again. No disresepect, but they fought as members of the RAFVR, not as air forces of governments in exile. Most importantly, the USA was certainly not a belligerent at this time, as a country it was neutral, some individuals fought, that is all. David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your thoughts lack verification, and are contradicted by sources used in the article. If these other countries had taken part at the time that would have been different, but you're conflating that with individuals joining the RAF. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There is write "It was the best scoring RAF squadron of the Battle of Britain"
To David Underdown: You' re right, their was in RAF, but he was from POLISH Arm of Air Force. And USA: You' re right again - their was neutral, but their fought in Battle of Britian under Aliants Command. And Poland WASN'T under Britian command, but yes, that' s right, Poland was in RAF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Belligerent has a specific legal meaning and means state parties to a conflict. The simple fact is that at this time in WWII the Polish and Czech contributions were not organised on this basis. Later in the war the governments-in-exile had de jure armed forces, and it is fair to include them as belligerents, but things had not reached that level of organisation. 303 Squadron was an RAF squadron, led by British officers (though no-one here would deny the invaluable contributions of the Polish pilots). The US volunteers were fighting despite the official policy of their government at the time - in theory they were committing a serious criminal offence, but the US government elected to turn a blind eye. David Underdown (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I repeat: poland 303 squadron was in Raf, their fought for Britian, in this battle weren't polish commanders, but They fight as Polish people, not Britian. Their were also from POLISH Arm of Air Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fighting as an individual (or even a group) does not mean the same thing as fighting on behalf of a nation-state or that state actually taking an active role; hence while Americans were engaged in combat (for example) they were not technically representing their nation/armed forces etc.
- Specifically looking at the Polish question, per the article: “The RAF was the only sovereign Allied air force; the Polish Air Force was not given sovereignty until June 1944(Peszke 1980, p. 134.)” … although it needs a bit of an update following the discussion on Canada.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- A thought, considering this question keeps getting brought up. Would it be wise to change the combatant section to something per the below:
- I repeat: poland 303 squadron was in Raf, their fought for Britian, in this battle weren't polish commanders, but They fight as Polish people, not Britian. Their were also from POLISH Arm of Air Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
United Kingdom/ British Empire
Canada--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, we need to do something along these lines. This just keeps coming up over and over again. --Shimbo (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why not add a table of the nationalities of those who took part in the battle, the number of each nationality and the number killed. That's what they did at the end of the 1969 film and I find it to be most effective. Then there could be a reference link from the mention of the belligerent nations to the table of the nationalities of the individuals -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is already a section 'International participation' that gives the figures and also links to Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain where there are more details. The problem is people don't read the whole article, they just look at the summary, don't see their country's flag and get upset. --Shimbo (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why not add a table of the nationalities of those who took part in the battle, the number of each nationality and the number killed. That's what they did at the end of the 1969 film and I find it to be most effective. Then there could be a reference link from the mention of the belligerent nations to the table of the nationalities of the individuals -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, we need to do something along these lines. This just keeps coming up over and over again. --Shimbo (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems odd to add the Canadian flag but not New Zealand, Australia etc? Also, Keith Park is a New Zealander (even though he was in the RAF), so should he have the NZ flag next to his name? (I've added an external link to a feature on NZers in the Battle of Britain - written and researched by a professional military historian - see it here) Jamie Mackay (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason the Canadian flag is there is because 1 RCAF Sqn was supplied and paid by Canada and fought as a Canadian unit- it was not incorporated into the RAF until 1941. The other foreign units which fought during the battle were RAF units which had Polish, or Czech pilots. Park commanded 11 Group as an RAF officer, not as a New Zealander, nor was he an officer of the RNZAF. This has been discussed at great length and is now archived. You should have also noticed from the comment directly above yours that there is a sub-article dedicated to Foreign personnel.
Aircrew Bias?
- I think it shows a bias towards aircrew, did not foreign volunteers also serve in other roles, probably increase the number people from other countries considerably. Why not just list every country in the world so we dont upset anybody. Where any of the German airmen foreign volunteers or otherwise? MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was at least one German who fought in the RAF. There was a programme on recently about German emigres who fled as the Nazis came to power. Some of them ended up in the British Army and at least one was in the RAF, flying rocket-firing Typhoons as the Allies swept back across Europe. Maybe there were some Germans who fought for the RAF in the Battle of Britain as well -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- A little off topic but i have also seen a documantry that highlighted that several thousand (prehaps more?) German exiles fought in the British Army. One chap that i remember was a crewman in an armoured car; he explained how they were either forced or opted to change their names (not sure if they were also given British citizenship) so they wouldn’t be picked up and recognised as “traitors” if caught. So prehaps my idea wouldnt be completly adequate to cover all the various exiles etc?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was at least one German who fought in the RAF. There was a programme on recently about German emigres who fled as the Nazis came to power. Some of them ended up in the British Army and at least one was in the RAF, flying rocket-firing Typhoons as the Allies swept back across Europe. Maybe there were some Germans who fought for the RAF in the Battle of Britain as well -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Coastal and Bomber Command losses
Has anyone been able to find sources that agree on figures. I have found a series of them but they differ somewhat. Dapi89 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Status of the battle of Britain in the WW II article.
This is all that is mentioned about the Battle of Britain in the WW II article With France neutralized, Germany began an air superiority campaign over Britain (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion.[61] The campaign failed, and the invasion plans were cancelled by September. It deserves much more than this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty hard to summarise that event in one wiki page, the Battle of Britain is wikilinked, there are other large campaigns given the same treatment in that section. Main article links could be added like some of the other sections there but which do you chose? Looks ok to me, if you are still concerned you could edit that article yourself or discuss it at the talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of course WW II was a huge event and there were other, even larger, campaigns but the B of B was a critical turning point. If we had lost it there were only two possible outcomes, Nazi domination of Europe, or Soviet domination. Even if Britain had not been invaded, we would have lost any ability to fight. The US would have been unable to make any significant contribution in the European theatre and the final outcome would have been completely different, whatever the US involvement. It is hard to think of another battle that had such a decisive effect on the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree entirely but the other article is the place to discuss it (you can of course amend it yourself but I suspect that article is heavily watched and you might get reverted, it's not on my watch list so I'm only guessing). The perception of the importance of the outcome of the Battle of Britain might well be different in countries outside the UK and this is the international 'English speaking' version of WP as we are often reminded. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. I am aware the we should present a world view, especially on this subject, but the repercussions of losing the Battle of Britain would have been worldwide, not only would Europe and that fate of its peoples have been drastically changed but Britain had a large empire at that time which might have fallen under Nazi control had the British government done so.
- But you are right, I do need to take this to the WW II article. I may give it a go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the WWII article is currently 171 kb in length and this one is 141 kb, I think they must have done a very good job to summarise it and keep it all under control, there are 40 pages of archived talk and this one in particular might be worth reading. It also suggests to me that this article needs further splitting, it has been mentioned before but did not seem to happen. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) interestingly uses the WWII article as an example and I just spotted there European Theatre of World War II which is perhaps more where the emphasis of the importance of the BoB can be found. I always 'look before I leap' around here! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its an interesting debate: Andrew Marr calls the Battle of Britain the most important event in British history and I would certainly judge it the most important battle in the last 2000 years because of the sheer significance of the consequences. It was certainly more significant than Stalingrad. Von Rundstedt (sp?) said it was the defining moment of WW2. Kentish 17 Oct 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.182.163 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Andrew Marr is a political journalist, so his views are not important. British military experiments tend to show that whatever happened in the Battle of Britain, the Navy would have defeated Sealion. Von Rundstedt did indeed say that, but his answer may have been formed from hidden motives - his hatred of Göring for one. Perhaps he is trying to tell use Herr Göring was the reason they lost the war? Or perhaps the old Prussian conservative militarist couldn't bring himself to admit the slavic races had beaten his beloved Wehrmacht? The historian should always look at the source itself first. Dapi89 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "defining moment"... There were lots of defining moments in WWII, ones which would have changed the course of the war. The BoB does not shine out any brighter than, say, the Russians stopping the German advance at Moscow, or the U.S. declaring war, or the Allied invasion of Normandy, or, yes, Stalingrad. Each of the events are crucial; none more than the other. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There were some other equally important battles in WWII of which you name some but not that many. The BoB was one of the most important battles of WWII and certainly the first critical battle. Had the Germans won, the outcome of all the other events that you have named might have been changed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- One might add another crucial turning point, the German way of war. Since the 1860s the Germans have demonstrated a talent for technological and tactical military affairs. However, they fail to understand the nature of industrial warfare, they don't understand or grasp the true nature and importance of military strategy, they fail to identify the crucial aspects of operational level warfare (intelligence and logistics), they overfocus on tactics and massively over-engineer their equipment. This is just as important as the sharp-end and all the campaigns which play out the results of these failures on the battlefield. The Germans were not going to prevail, but these battles mentioned above had to be conducted to expose the top-level failures. Any of them can be called decisive. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It may be RN could defeat Sealion. I've heard it said, had FC been decisively defeated, Sealion would be unnecessary: Luftwaffe could simply bomb British industry til invasion became unnecessary. (In light of BC's lack of success over Germany, this is open to question.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it was Stephen Bungay that pointed this out. Personally, I think it would have an effect in keeping Britain suppressed (the total exposure of its industries to bombing would have limited its capacity to be effective). However, the Germans don't do strategy or military intelligence very well, so they would likely have failed to get this right. That is one good thing about German military strategy, it is predictably bad. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Trekphiler. If FC had been defeated, Britain would at the very least have been bombed into talking to the Nazis. Churchill would have gone and been replaced by a less belligerent leader. Britain would have end up up like Vichy France or at least nominally 'neutral'. The would have been no way for the US to enter the European war as Europe would have ended up under either Nazi or Soviet control. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll accept that possibility, certainly. :D (I was watching a doc that seemed to heavily overstate the case...) As noted, tho, the issue is, could bombing alone force a gov't to quit fighting? That hasn't been established. (Suggested, but not proven.) BC didn't manage it against Germany, nor USAAF against Japan, & Luftwaffe simply did not have the ability to deliver remotely the kind of loads BC did by '45. So long as BC had the ability to strike back, HMG could hold on. (As witness China.) It took V2s to make HMG think there might be a real chance morale would break, & they were seen as impossible to defend against (in any tangible way). That said, I'm not sure how you conclude Winston would fall.
- Dapi89, I completely agree, Luftwaffe intel & operational art was so bad, even with FC completely suppressed, it's likely the damage to Brit industries wouldn't be shattering. (They didn't even know where Spitfires were manufactured! And they'd bomb a target once & cross it off their list...) As has been said before, the Brits didn't win, the Germans lost. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:58 & 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
To drive home an earlier point, Erich Ludendorff was rumoured to have said to his staff before the Spring Offensive, "Strategy? You want strategy? I don't want to her the word strategy!"
I would argue for that last point partially. However, the Germans did not have the manpower or material potential (at least in 1933-1940) to produce the combination needed for total victory in Western Europe. Their Army was armed in breadth but not in depth, their Air Force was the same, plus it did not have the right equipment or doctrine. And the Navy was impotent. It is likely that to press the case for "the Germans lost it, the Brits did not win it", you would have to successfully prove that Germany had the capacity to build a formidable Navy at least the equal of Britain to be in serious contention in the said time frame. If you can, then you can justly claim Germany had the chance of victory and threw it away. I doubt this is the case. But the earlier failures I mentioned make a slim chance an impossible one.
Germany was land locked in a way, with enemies on either side. It is only natural its limited resources prior to 1940 would have gone to its army and aerial assets to face the immediate threats at its borders. The Navy came third. But if it were reversed, the Germans would not have got to the Battle of Britain in the first place. I think the problem is deeper rooted and slightly more complicated than analysing military art alone.
While as a student of history I am bound by the unwritten law that nothing is inevitable, I can say with a degree of safely, that all things considered, the German Reich was unlikely to win the war. I suspect the Soviet Union, which was massively superior in its understanding of warfare and its ability to sustain it, would have prevailed anyway. Whether this war would have ended in 1945 is another matter. Dapi89 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- MH and Trek - The Luftwaffe did successfully bomb and destroy the Supermarine Woolston factory which was building Spitfires but, with the success of the dispersal scheme, and the CB factory finally starting production, the loss in production wasn't vital. Although FC was having some real problems while the Luftwaffe kept attacking the airfields, the Luftwaffe was unable to string together enough successful consecutive attacks against the RAF's infrastructure, especially the RDF installations, sector stations etc - as Price explained in "The Hardest Day" there was a great deal of built in redundancy and there were plenty of back-up systems available should the control rooms on the sector stations be knocked out. The most successful attacks BTW were carried out by Bf 110 fighter-bombers, but at a high cost in attrition and, in 1940, there were not enough operational. Bottom line was the only way that FC as it was used in 1940 could have been knocked out was by a successful ground invasion. Minorhistorian (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be talking about aspects of the BoB rather than what would have happened had it been lost. By 'lost', I mean had Germany established complete air superiority over the UK. It would not have necessary for British moral to have been completely destroyed for the whole outcome of the war to have been changed. Hitler considered Britain to be natural allies and there were those in Britain who would have done a deal with him. With German bombers free to attack British targets at will, the British would have easily been persuaded to negotiate. A negotiated settlement could have been far worse than invasion and defeat. Britain still had an empire in those days and a Nazi influence throughout it would have had repercussions round the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Martin, your assessment is full of "woulda, coulda, shoulda". It’s all personal opinion. And you have not addressed the points being made: Sealion was set up to be a disaster, whether the Luftwaffe won or not. It is the same arm-chair general style argument I see all the time, "the Germans would have could have should have done this or that", while missing out the enormous and complicated detail of how. It is horrendously more complicated than you make it sound. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is you assessment based on? There certainly are many sources that consider the BoB a crucial turning point in the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Martin, your assessment is full of "woulda, coulda, shoulda". It’s all personal opinion. And you have not addressed the points being made: Sealion was set up to be a disaster, whether the Luftwaffe won or not. It is the same arm-chair general style argument I see all the time, "the Germans would have could have should have done this or that", while missing out the enormous and complicated detail of how. It is horrendously more complicated than you make it sound. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- ♠Dapi, you seem to be equating victory in BoB with victory in the war at large. IDK anybody who believes that. (I certainly don't.)
- ♠"the British would have easily been persuaded to negotiate."? Really? The Chinese weren't, when IJAAF esentially controlled the sky. As noted, so long as there was an ability to strike back... And how long, or how much, control do we presume Luftwaffe could exercise? I would believe temporary superiority over S England, but that left most of 13 Group plus Ireland for BC bases beyond the reach of Me-109s & -110s. So long as the bomber force was preserved, negotiation would be damn hard to "force" on HMG (especially with Winston as PM).
- ♠I'm also less than convinced the Commonwealth would default to fighting on, tho that's the common perception. After Japan attacked, it's just possible the Ozzies, at least, would tell HMG to go screw & cut a deal with the Germans. What Mackenzie King would do is anybody's guess. (Listen to the counsel of his dead mother? End up featured in "Psycho"??) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't actually equate the BoB with anything. I added and supported Decisive victory as that was the consensus and FC's victory was decisive to the campaign only. I don't actually believe the BoB amounted to much. I would argue it was an irrelevant battle. Regardless of who won, the Germans were on a loser in Sealion and in the East. So I think BoB is much less decisive than is made out. Dapi89 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again, this is all conjecture and personal opinion. Historians have pronounced the Battle of Britain as a decisive turning point. Most editors working and contributing to the article have the same conclusions. Let's let this rest for now, it was a Wiki consensus decision to attribute a "decisive" victory. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, the view of historians is clear. Sorry for bringing up this subject here, my complaint was about the WWII article and I should take it there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again, this is all conjecture and personal opinion. Historians have pronounced the Battle of Britain as a decisive turning point. Most editors working and contributing to the article have the same conclusions. Let's let this rest for now, it was a Wiki consensus decision to attribute a "decisive" victory. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Pilots
- Before the war, the RAF's processes for selecting potential candidates were more concerned with social standing than actual aptitude.
All airforces including the USAAF and RCAF placed a high premium on education as pilots would also become officers yet education levels also correlated with social standing. George Beurling was turned down for the RCAF because of his lack of education. The above statement needs to be examined and amplified upon or removed.
- However, the problem of pilot shortage was self-inflicted, due to inefficiencies in training and assignment.
Really, and here I thought that the problem was that RAF pilots were being killed and wounded in combat with the Luftwaffe...This sentence needs to go.
- With aircraft production running at 300 each week, only 200 pilots were trained in the same period.
Yet we state earlier in the article that a key aircraft in the training scheme should be scrapped...
- In addition, more pilots were allocated to squadrons than there were aircraft.
This allowed squadrons to maintain their operational strength despite illness, death and provision for leave. Pretty amazing to see it as a criticism of RAFFC.
- Another problem was that only about 30% of the 9,000 pilots were assigned to operational squadrons; 20% of the pilots were involved in conducting pilot training, and a further 20% were undergoing further instruction, like those offered in Canada and in Southern Rhodesia to the Commonwealth trainees, although already qualified. The rest were assigned to staff positions, since RAF policy dictated that only pilots could make many staff and operational command decisions, even in engineering matters. At the height of fighting, and despite Churchill's insistence, only 30 pilots were released to the front line from administrative duties.
Some of the staff pilots were men like AM Dowding, AVM Park and AVM Leigh-Mallory...are these men really potential candidates for front line combat in RAFFC? If they are not, then the statement that there was 9000 pilots available cannot be correct. This section is complete nonsense.
- For these reasons the RAF had fewer experienced pilots at the start of the battle
...really, and the fighting prior to the BofB had nothing to do with it?!
- and it was the lack of trained pilots in the fighting squadrons, rather than the lack of aircraft, that became the greatest concern for Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, Commander of Fighter Command. Drawing from regular RAF forces and the Auxiliary Air Force and the Volunteer Reserve, the British could muster some 1,103 fighter pilots on 1 July. Replacement pilots, with little flight training and often no gunnery training, suffered high casualty rates.[60]
Finally, a coherent statement.
- Due mostly to more efficient training, the Luftwaffe could muster a larger number (1,450) of more experienced fighter pilots.[74] Drawing from a cadre of Spanish Civil War veterans, they had comprehensive courses in aerial gunnery and instructions in tactics suited for fighter-versus-fighter combat.[65] Luftwaffe training manuals also discouraged heroism, stressing the utmost importance of attacking only when the odds were in the pilot's favour.
More efficient training? Then why did pilot availability in the Me109 squadrons fall faster than in RAFFC? This section implies that RAF fighter pilots didn't receive training in aerial gunnery. Wasn't this one of roles of the Fairey Battle target tug? Later the article states:In July - September the number of pilots available fell by 136, but the number of operational pilots had shrunk by 171 by September. The training organisation of the Luftwaffe was failing to replace losses. German fighter pilots, in contrast to popular perception, were not afforded training or rest rotations unlike their British counterparts. Yet the article states that Luftwaffe training was more efficient than RAF training.There are some major problems here.
- ♠"Some of the staff pilots were men like AM Dowding" That's 3 out of hundreds, hardly a representative sample. Sounds like a straw man to me.
- ♠"This section implies that RAF fighter pilots didn't receive training in aerial gunnery." Some significant numbers didn't, as recorded by men who were in the Battle. (Which I believe the fn source mentions...?) In no small part because of the godawful rush to get them out of OTC, because they were so inexperienced they were getting killed at a rate RAF hadn't seen since WW1. A rate which applying experienced pilots (such as those from the Defiants & Battles...) could have helped reduce quite substantially. (It didn't take experts to fly target banners...nor, BTW, Battles, when Ansons could do the job. Or Tiger Moths, for all that.)
- ♠"Wasn't this one of roles of the Fairey Battle target tug?" So evidently it wasn't so essential after all.
- ♠"yet education levels also correlated with social standing" It was correlated with income, true. AFAIK, the British military in general placed more emphasis on social position than ability. Which explains the large number of bad generals. I see no evidence RAF was different.
- ♠"a key aircraft in the training scheme should be scrapped" And the high-time pilots converted to flying fighters. A temporary solution for an immediate crisis. The Harvard (Texan/SNJ) would rapidly replace the Defiant anyhow, wouldn't it?
- ♠"the fighting prior to the BofB had nothing to do with it?" Not unless you think RAFFC losses prior were in the thousands, which they'd have had to be.
- ♠"Then why did pilot availability in the Me109 squadrons fall faster than in RAFFC?" I have a suspicion the short range of the 109, lack of drop tanks, the Channel, & RAFFC had something to do with it... (I would also bet the German expectation for a short war, leading to cannibalizing the training command, contributed.)
- ♠"More efficient training?" I recall the Germans considering the standard FC line-astern attacks "line of idiots". The Brits had tactics better suited to early WW1; experience by the end of that war had already shown pairs/fours, like the Germans were using, were essential. I'd say that makes German training better, wouldn't you? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Waaay back in April-December 2007 it was much simpler; April 2008 is where it changed. Looking back *shudder* some of the idiotic battles that were being played out 'tis embarressing! Minorhistorian (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Terraine states "The RAFVR, created in 1936...was the first step towards the mass Citizen Air Force...It had, for its day, a remarkably forward-looking feature: The new organization was essentially a democratic one. It was designed to appeal, to the young men of our cities, without any class distinctions..."to open the force to the whole middle class in the wisest sense of the term, namely the complete range of the output of the public and secondary schools."...It would be inappropriate to grade the members on entry as officers or airmen according to their social class; entry will be accordingly be on a common footing...promotions to commissioned rank will be made at a later stage in accordance with the abilities for leadership actually displayed." Entry into the RAFVR began in April 1937; The aim was to recruit 800 potential pilots a year...by 1939 ...pilot strength had increased to over 2500. By Sept 1 (1939) the strength of the RAFVR stood at 6646 pilots..." Dennis Richards on pages 16-17 says essentially the same things. The idea of the RAF as an elitist organization prior to the war seems quite untrue.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Onto the Fairey Battle and its importance for training: "Secondline Duty. Some of the airframes ordered from Austin In the final production batches were target-tugs. They featured a wind-driven winch on the port fuselage side and a target drogue container under the rear fuselage. The Battle was also used in the trainer role. Initially many of the early machines had dual controls fitted without modification to the canopy...These Battles were mainly used for Battle crew training, and in 1940, for fighter pilot training. A definitive trainer version was eventually built though, with two separate cockpit canopies, and the last 200 airframes off the production line were made to this standard." quote from: Ian Huntley, Aviation Guide, Fairey Battle p12. Australia received 4 Fairey Battles in April 1940, and 330+ by the end of 1943. Canada began to receive them in August 1939 for 740 total. South Africa received "about 150" and a few were sent to India. so of 2184 aircraft, about 1250 surved productively as training aircraft. Ian Huntley, Aviation Guide, Fairey Battle p12-13. After the Battle of France surviving aircraft were used as night bombers against the invasion ports and 3 squadrons transferred to Coastal Command. Broomfield, The Fairey Battle. Neither of these authors mentions anything about any suggestions to scrap the aircraft as a response to the BofB. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so now that we have new information and sources there is no reason not to work on the offending paragraphs and add corrected information where needed. Minorhistorian (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I thought I would continue to add material here to address all the points that I raised. Regarding Luftwaffe fighter training and it's "efficiency". This is an excerpt from Spitfire on My Tail, by Ulrich Steinhilper, p295:
"High also on the list of losses as the battle wore on were the replacement pilots. They simply didn't have the experience that we pre-war regulars had acquired. In our Gruppe at the beginning of the French Campaign we had thirty-six experienced pilots, none of whom had less than three years flying experience. Now we were getting replacements for the experienced pilots we had lost straight from Jagdfliegerschule (fighter school]. At that time we still tried our best to take care of these fledglings until they could accrue some experience. Typical of these youngsters was a young Gefreiter who arrived in late September. His flying time was minimal - he had only fired a few shots at a ground target, had never flown on oxygen and still had no idea how to use his radio. We tried to increase their experience before they actually came along on combat missions by taking them up on patrols between missions. Then we would talk on the radio, climb to altitudes in excess of 8,000 metres (25,000 ft) and make them use oxygen. Of special importance was teaching them how to change the pitch of their propeller to get maximum pull from the engine at high altitude... It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle-climb or at high altitude.5 After about ten hours of 'tuition' we would take them out over the Channel to shoot at shadows on the water or cross to Dungeness and shoot at a black medieval tower which stood there (the old Dungeness Lighthouse). Finally when we could not excuse them combat duty any more we would have to take them along with us..." Steinhilper, as is obvious, was a Luftwaffe fighter pilot during the BofB.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a bit of material that is more qualitative. It is from Why air forces fail: the anatomy of defeat By Robin D. S. Higham, Stephen John Harris, p220:
"The Luftwaffe began the war with well-trained pilots. In 1940-1941 German pilots went into operational units with approximately 250 hours of total flight time, about 100 hours of which were in the aircraft they would fly into combat. This compared favorably with the RAF, which sent pilots into action with about 200 hours of training and only 60-75 hours in operational aircraft. It takes eighteen to twenty-four months and a few hundred flight hours to train a fighter or bomber pilot to the point of effectiveness in combat. At the start of the war, Britain realized that airpower would play a key role in the war and that many thousands of pilots, navigators, bomb aimers, and other aircrew would be required. A vast system capable training tens of thousands of pilots was set up for British Commonwealth aircrews at Canadian bases. Starting in 1940, the United States also began construction or a vast training establishment Although German held the training edge at the start of the war. It did not last long. While the Allies embarked on a vast aircrew training program, the Luftwaffe, impressed by the relative ease of its early victories and confident that Britain and Russia would soon fall, carried out only a small expansion of its training program in 1940-1941. Yet even this was crippled by the Luftwaffe's policy of stripping the training schools of experienced instructor pilots and personnel at the start of each major campaign. Since the Luftwaffe had no reserves of pilots or aircraft, the training schools served as the reserve, and training suffered accordingly. Because it was assumed that each campaign would be short, the Luftwaffe leadership easily accepted what was expected to be a short-term disruption. By 1941, the Luftwaffe was already suffering from a shortage of trained pilots, so the training curriculum was reviewed to see whether pilots could be trained faster and with fewer flight hours. By the second half of 1942, the total flying time for German pilot training had dropped to under 200 hours. In contrast, the British and American training programs had increased their flying time to over 300 flight hours for each new pilot. From then on, the training disparity only grew wider. When the German pilot shortage became acute in 1943, every short cut was taken to abbreviate training..." Far from being more efficient, the Luftwaffe training program only highlighted the lack of depth of the Luftwaffe and the death trap that an airforce creates for it self when it cannibalizes its training scheme to try and increase operational strength. We can see why German replacement pilots were poorly trained near the end of the BofB, because the Luftwaffe reduced its training program at the start of each campaign, but if the campaign went on too long, the replacement program would begin to collapse due to a lack of instructors and training aircraft.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- "the last 200 airframes off the production line" Which would not be in 1940 in any event, & by which time they could be replaced by Harvards... From the 1500 or so ordered so far.
- "Australia received 4 Fairey Battles in April 1940" Loss of which would not cripple RAAF pilot training... Not to mention the Wirraway variant of the Texan...
- "Canada began to receive them in August 1939 for 740 total." How many in Summer '40? And how many Harvards had Noorduyn built then (of the 2485 total)?
- "about 1250 surved productively...surviving aircraft were used as night bombers against the invasion ports and 3 squadrons transferred to Coastal Command." Which doesn't address their manifest uselessness during the Battle.
- "Typical of these youngsters" When did he arrive?
- "By 1941, the Luftwaffe was already suffering from a shortage of trained pilots" And the Battle was over already, so not terribly relevant.
- I won't suggest the German training program suffered, but had it suffered before the Battle to a degree it had a material effect on the outcome? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The last Battle was built on Sept 02 1940. 200 of the Battles supplied to Canada were fitted with a power operated gun turret to train aerial gunners, showing the versatility of the aircraft. The contention that the Harvard could have replaced the Battle as a training aircraft amounts to OR unless you can provide a source showing the RAF and the BCATP would not have suffered from the lack of a Merlin engined aircraft to train pilots, gunners, and mechanics and that studies were done showing that it would have been possible to increase the strength of RAFFC during the BofB by scrapping the Battle, and that it would not have increased Britain's vulnerability to invasion due to a reduction in the numbers of tactical strike aircraft. I have never seen or heard of such a study.
- Bomber Command continued to strike at the invasion ports during the BofB and the Battle was a key component of RAFBC at that time, and RAFBC chose not to remove the Battle from frontline duty because they had no other available alternative:
"Already as night fell on August 18 he was scraping the barrel to the extent that new pilots joining Squadrons were lucky if they had put in more than ten hours Hurri- cane or Spitfire solo flying. With this problem weighing heavily on his mind, Dowding, understand- ably, looked outside Fighter Com- mand for new 'chicks' as Churchill affectionately termed his young air- men in their 'teens and twenties. Could he not add to more than fifty naval fighter pilots already on loan from the Fleet Air Arm, trained pilots from the RAF Bomber and Coastal Commands? Such pilots might not meet the training requirements of a peace-time Fighter Command but they were service-trained men and wore air force wings. Unhappily, the fighter chief's requests were received coolly at Air Ministry. Each com- mand was responsibly conscious of the demand that might fall upon it if an invasion fleet put to sea. Just as Dowding had been saving his fighters for his rainy day, the air staff were husbanding the remainder of the air force against the invasion which only Dowding's denial of Luftwaffe air superiority could prevent. When Dowding asked for all the more experi- enced pilots among the Fairey Battle crews of Bomber Command the air staff opposed transfer because they were holding these obsolescent machines in readiness for attacks on landing barges. Eventually, under great pressure from the fighter chief, the air staff agreed on a ration of pilots from outside Fighter Command. Dowding was loaned twenty Fairey Battle pilots and thirty-three pilots from Army Co-operation Command Squadrons, fifty-three airmen who, after a course of only six days were un- buttoning their uniform jacket top i buttons and fighting and dying with ', that gallant band of airmen..." Bishop, Their Finest Hour, p85-87. The air staff in BC considered the Battle as not only valuable, but irreplaceable.
- The "youngster" arrived in "late Sept 1940", which supports the information from Why air forces fail: the anatomy of defeat that the Luftwaffe was reducing training during intensive campaigns, and therefore Luftwaffe pilot training suffered during intensive campaigns such as the BofB.
- The Luftwaffe was suffering from a lack of trained pilots in 1941 because the reference source states that they choose to cripple training during intensive campaigns, and which the RAF tried not to do, and never did again after the BofB.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)