Talk:Battle of Britain (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Location
Anyone know the actual location of the emergency undergroudn control room, apparently housed behind a shoe shop?
Dave
- It at RAF Uxbridge in North London you can visit it but it is still an RAF base so you have to book ahead. It wasn't the emergency control room it was the control room all the time. I don't think it was under a shoe shop it certainly isn't any more; it is very unobtrusive above ground though.--Shimbo 08:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Luftwaffe official stating that: "Die Engländer können nicht sowohl im Norden als auch im Süden zur gleichen Zeit sein." Did one actully say that or was it made up for the film?
-
- Probably a 'composite' statement for dramatic effect. The RAF could indeed be in the North and the South at the same time, because units were held in the the north of the country and not all 'thrown at' the main centre of activity in the South-East. Don't forget that Germany is to the East of Britain-not the South, and (in addition to the German assaults on South-East airfields and London) a lot of German bombing activity at the time was on comparatively Northern targets. ChrisRed 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is probably a composite quote, but it reflects the German belief that they had inflicted severe loses on the RAF, forcing Dowding to draw in squadrons from the North, leaving that part of the country undefended. German bombers attacking the UK came mainly either from France, to the southeast, or Norway, to the northeast, rather than Germany itself.
-
- "German bombers attacking the UK came mainly either from France, to the southeast, or Norway, to the northeast, rather than Germany itself". True. We know this now, and in the case of fighter escorts, they could only come from occupied France or the low countries, but a quick look at the range of a He111 means that bombers could easily have been sent from any point of the compass between SW and NE that Uncle Hermann chose, including fairly deep within Germany itself.ChrisRed 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Be that as it may, the overall concept related above is accurate. The Germans were convinced that the only reason the RAF could put up that many fighters against their raids in the south was because they had pulled them all from the north. An attack on the north, then, should be almost unopposed. However the entire concept was based on faulty logic; the reason they had so many planes is because the Germans weren't shooting down as many as they believed and increased production was making up for them. Both north and south were well enough supplied. Maury 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay would be good for the citation concerning the unorthodox view of the Germans switching targets to London. (Bungay argues that Kesselring had a considerable influence on the switch to London bombing.)
[edit] Buchons masqueraing as Hurricanes
- the most distant "Hurricane"s from the camera were actually Buchons marked as Hurricanes as there were not enough flyable ones to make up the formation.
Were they definitely Buchons and not Spitfires? Man with two legs 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can't use me as a source, but I'm looking at that scene right now - it's about 93:00 into the film - and they're Buchons. There are three Hurricanes in the foreground, and three Buchons in the background. The Buchon's chin scoop is very distinctive. They appear a couple of times and then break off to shoot down some Heinkels. The RAF aircraft are supposed to be part of "T5", which is described as a training squadron. Judging by this link, which could be nonsense, the film might not have been strictly accurate with regards to squadron numbers. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk)
The 'T5' is not the qsquadron number but the actual plot number allocated in the control room, in this case to the flight of Polish-flown Hurricanes led by Barry Foster's character. This reference number was for tracking only as each plot on the table was given a letter prefix and number suffix by the Sector contollers. I assume 'T' is for training, and '5' as the number of aircraft involved. I seem to recall 'H' was for hostiles, and 'X' for unidentified plots.Thanks Harryurz (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I wrote the original statement and did as Ashley has done, checked frame-by-frame to confirm that the aircraft were indeed Buchons but due to the distance involved, they are a bit hard to make out but clearly are Buchons. There were only a limited number of flyable Hurricanes available for filming. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
- Actually, I wrote the original statement pointing out the masquerading Buchons... Mark Sublette (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote the original statement and did as Ashley has done, checked frame-by-frame to confirm that the aircraft were indeed Buchons but due to the distance involved, they are a bit hard to make out but clearly are Buchons. There were only a limited number of flyable Hurricanes available for filming. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle moviep.jpg
Image:Battle moviep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg
Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of britain.jpg
Image:Battle of britain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Mark Haddie"
The nickname "Mark Haddie" is a wellknown and well documented story from the making of this movie. But doesn't the sentence "These modified aircraft are known today within the classic warbird scene as "Mark Haddies", in a play on Grp. Capt. Mahaddie's last name." give the impression that these aircraft were kept in that configuration up to this day, as in "today"? The reference dates back to 1968. As far as I know, they were all returned into original shape and versions after the movie was finished. --Towpilot (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a tortured piece of writing that could be a lot clearer, but it's not necessarily a contradiction; even if the aeroplanes had subsequently been scrapped or modified, their 1968 configuration would still be known as "Mark Haddie". I have rewritten this to say "became known" instead of "are known today". I assume that Mark in this context is a pun on e.g. model, rather than a real person called Mark. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The making of the film - Spitfire numbers
There's a sentence in the above section that's a bit odd and not really very clear:- "In the late 1960s there were few restoration projects for classic aircraft and through Mahaddie's efforts, the film company located 109 Spitfires in the UK with 27 Spitfires (12 flyable) as well as six Hawker Hurricanes (three flyable) available for filming.". Is there any particular significance in mentioning that Mahaddie located 109 Spitfires in the UK when only 27 of them were used in the film? Mighty Antar (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- At the time of the film, there was little understanding of the scope of the British warbird community. The film producers had made a request to fly a veritable armada of authentic period aircraft with the belief that these examples would be readily available. Yet when experts were consulted, the first thing that was established was that there were very few aircraft of any type available and a comprehensive survey had to be undertaken to research each individual aircraft in terms of its availability for the film production. Many of the 109 Spitfires were unsuitable as they were either static displays such as those mounted on pylons as "gate guardians" or in various states of disrepair to render them unflyable. The reason for the inclusion of the details of Mahaddie's search was that due to the efforts of the Battle of Britain film crews, many of the existing airframes were "discovered" and the resultant publicity was responsible for the eventual recovery and saving of numerous Spitfires. Although other factors were involved, a concerted effort to remove aircraft used as gate guardians in the United Kingdom and replace them with full-scale fibreglas models was undertaken in the wake of the film production crews identifying bonafide examples that were suitable for restoration. Like the film Catch 22, the Battle of Britain film played a significant role in saving warbirds. Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC).
[edit] spacing
Can you tell me please what effect it has on your version of Firefox, because on mine it does exactly what it does on Internet Explorer, provides a little breathing space between the lede and the Table of Contents, and between the bottom of the article (usually the external links) and the navigation boxes. What, exactly, are you seeing that these extra spaces do? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- And, no, the formatting of Wiki does not take care of this. Wiki jams the ToC right up against the bottom of the lede, and the bottom of the article right up against the navboxes. I find it ugly, and it makes the text considerably more difficult to read. Any graphic designer will tel you that when and where to have a little bit of visual breathing room is an important consideration is laying out any text for publication, and that's certainly the case here, one that the Wikipedia formatters seem to have overlooked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ed, there is no "breathing space" required; there is a format that WP:Aviation uses that provides for this. Your additional spacing leaves gaps in white space in the format. Check your display preferences or settings, Wiki does give provision for this. Trust me and after thousands of articles, I have the conventions of layout down pat. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
- Bzuk, sorry, I really cannot take this on faith, you're going to have to give me some specifics. There are no settings that I'm aware of which can make the kind of difference you're talking about, so if the exist, you have to tell me so that I can see them. If I don't see them, then I'm going to continue to add those space whenever and wherever I can, because on my installations of both Internet Explorer and Firefox, they make a difference. On that, you have to believe me -- I don't add those spaces for the hell of it, to be ornery, or because I enjoy pissing people off, I add them because it makes the page look better.
So, if you are in possession of some magic formula cooked up by the wizards of aviation, could you please pass it along to me? I'd appreciate it. Thaks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- One other thing, if you're talking about making a change in the presentation of the page on my screen that would not be seen by the normal everyday person who pops on to Wikipedia to find something out, then that's not particularly interesting or useful to me. I want the article to look as good as possible to the ordinary user, not to people who are hep enough to flick the right switches to make everything look nice. Wikipedia exists for the users, not for the editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Bzuk, sorry, I really cannot take this on faith, you're going to have to give me some specifics. There are no settings that I'm aware of which can make the kind of difference you're talking about, so if the exist, you have to tell me so that I can see them. If I don't see them, then I'm going to continue to add those space whenever and wherever I can, because on my installations of both Internet Explorer and Firefox, they make a difference. On that, you have to believe me -- I don't add those spaces for the hell of it, to be ornery, or because I enjoy pissing people off, I add them because it makes the page look better.
- Ed, there is no "breathing space" required; there is a format that WP:Aviation uses that provides for this. Your additional spacing leaves gaps in white space in the format. Check your display preferences or settings, Wiki does give provision for this. Trust me and after thousands of articles, I have the conventions of layout down pat. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle moviep.jpg
Image:Battle moviep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg
Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of britain.jpg
Image:Battle of britain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)