Talk:Battle of Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Britain article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Good article Battle of Britain was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Battle of Britain is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Britain as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Belligerents and outcome

Our anon friend is determinedly adding in the other nations on the British side. The alst discussion of this came don on the side of listing British only, and mentioning other combatants in text. Anyone else have a different view? David Underdown (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is okay as it is. If he bothers to read the article he would see that they were credited for their part it in it. I would strongly oppose it being moved to "Allied". Only the RAF operated as a independent force on the Allied side during this battle. The Allied pilots flew RAF fighters in RAF squadrions under RAF command, I think anything else would distort the reality of the battle. It was a British one. If he keeps changing it withot responding to editors, reaching a consensus (which I am sure he will not), I think he should be blocked. Dapi89 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The only sovereign nation to fight in the battle was Britain. America and all the other volunteers had not declared war yet, and many who had were overrun by the Germans. They were just volunteers, not a sovereign nation's army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the defeated nations Air Forces were not sovereign, however it should be noted that the Polish Army and Navy were granted sovereign status in June 1940 (the Air Force in June 1944). However they did not participate. Dapi89 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there is possibly an issue as to whether the use of United Kingdom is accurate in the Battle box. Would British Empire not be more accurate entity to describe the allegiance of most of the "UK" forces engaged? Were the dominions not also at war with Germany? --Sf (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Agree. Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Polish pilots fought both within RAF division, as well as within Polish divisions which were part of sovereign Polish army. I've read that Polish Air Force was recognised as formally sovereign force within Polish army in 1940, with several provisions - e.g. there were some British commanders, etc. Nevertheless Polish pilots took oath to Polish army, not the British. In 1944 it was only another agreement, in which PAF was exclusively under Polish controlSzopen (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? The Polish squadrons flew in RAF colours, following orders from RAF controllers, with many British officers, and as part of the RAF IIRC, so it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as Polish Air Force squadrons. This is not in any way to deny that they were brave men who made a vital contribution, but they were not IMO a separate force, in the way the USAAF was when it flew from Britain later in the war. --Shimbo (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Polish pilots also had Polish insignia, and all British position could be doubled by Polish equivalent. They took oath to Polish commanders, not to British. My source is of course Polish Air Force in Great Britain, which clearly stated that INITIALLY Polish bombers were part of RAF, but since 1940, August the 5th, "the British government finally accepted the Polish Air Force as a sovereign, allied military formation. From then on the airmen were part of the Polish Army, flying their own standards and wearing British uniforms but with Polish rank insignia. Although still subordinate to British command, the Polish units were directly subordinate to a Polish inspector of the Air Forces, who in turn was responsible to the Polish government." In other words, it was formally sovereign allied force closely integrated with RAF, not simply RAF squadrons with Polish members. Szopen (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That may well be right, but other Wikipedia articles are not counted as valid sources. The Land (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And even taht says they were flying in squadrons numbered according to the RAF scheme (just like the Commonwealth squadrons). David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WWW:

"independent PAF under OPERATIONAL control of RAF"

"On 5 August 1940, an agreement was reached creating an independent Polish Air Force, although still subordinate to the RAF in many aspects."

" On 5th August 1940 Poland signed an agreement with the British Government. The agreement enabled all Polish military forces to keep their national identity and military customs under Polish command in conjunction with the British War Office and the British High Command to integrate the Poles into the overall war strategy. " As I said: "formally independent", integrated tightly with RAF structures. Szopen (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this wrong. Polish Army and Navy units were given sovereignty, but that of it's air force was refused. This decision was reversed in June 1944. See the Unternehmen Bodenplatte article. I recently added this:

Agreement #4 of the 11 June 1940 between the United Kingdom and Poland recognised the Polish Navy and Army as sovereign but that of the Air Force was refused. Agreement #7 reversed this decision in June 1944, and the Polish Air Force was "returned" to full Polish jurisdiction (with the exception of combat assignments, although the Poles retained the right to veto).

Using: Peszke, Michael Alfred. "A Synopsis of Polish-Allied Military Agreements During World War Two", Military Affairs, v 44, n3 (Oct. 1980), pp. 128-134.....from JSTOR.Dapi89 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This solves the issue. As I wrote above, "Now, i have no access to this, but I am sure this would finally solve the issue: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1987437 # "A Synopsis of Polish-Allied Military Agreements During World War Two" - this would either prove me wrong, or prove me right :) Anyone has here access to jstor?". So, it prove me wrong. Szopen (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
WAIT! This dos not solve the issue: The agreement quoted is in June, while the one quoted by other websites is from AUGUST 1940!!! Szopen (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the statement in the article is wrong (note that is not refereced). Polish Air Force units were not made soverign until June 1944. The August agreement was to make Polish Air Force units operational, as Polish units belonging to the RAF, because of losses sustained. Dapi89 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Outline of Agreements:

Agreement#4 11 June 1940

Negotiated in October 1939, but due to its very satisfactorary nature (from the Polish point of view) it was only ratified in June 1940. The points of contention were the requirement of the induction into the RAF volunteere reserve, an oath of allegiance to king of Great Britain, wearing of RAF uniforms, and insignia. The Polish Air Inspectorate was granted the right of visitation of Polish Squadrons. Most Polish officers who eagerly volunteered to serve in the Uk were disenchanted with these provisions and only accepted them at the direct request of the Polish Air Force C-in-C.

Agreement#5 August 1940

Governed the stationing of Polish Land Army units in the United Kingdom based on the Commonwealth Forces Act. Recognised the absolute sovereignty of the Polish Land Army and confirmed the same for the Polish Navy as per agreements of 18 October 1939. Modified most objectionable aspects of the 11 June [1940] agreements regarding the Air Force. However, left the Polish Air Force under the control of the air ministry and stated the King’s regulations took precedence over Polish military law and discipline for Polish air personnel. This was not the case for the Army or Navy.

Agreement#7 June1944

“Returned” Polish Air Force units back to complete Polish jurisdiction except combat assignments which the Poles Air Force Staff had the right to veto.

From the source:

Peszke, Michael Alfred. "A Synopsis of Polish-Allied Military Agreements During World War Two", Military Affairs, v 44, n3 (Oct. 1980) Dapi89 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dazed & confused

I'm going to do an inline comentry, sorry...

As it is, the article needs help:

"In the summer of 1940 there were about 9,000 pilots in the RAF for approximately 5,000 aircraft, the majority of which were bombers. However, the problem of pilot shortage was self-inflicted by the RAF due to inefficiencies in training and assignment. With aircraft production running at 300 per week, only 200 pilots were being trained in the same time, and it took 4,000 aircraft to produce 2,500 pilots. In addition, more pilots were allocated to squadrons then the aircraft (26 to 20). Another problem was that only 30% of the pilots were assigned to the operational front-line squadrons. 20% of pilots were involved in the pilot instruction, and a further 205 were undergoing further instruction although already qualified."
However, the way you "helped", before discussing it was not helpful!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The statistics are awkward; switching from percentages to a raw number is a bad idea. And what do the percentages refer to, exactly?
Are you a statistician? I'm an economic historian and I have no problem dealing with percentages and raw numbers.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I del the ref "4000 a/c to 2500 pilots" as irrelevant. It doesn't (or doesn't evidently) bear on the issue of training.)
It bears relevance when you consider that Germans required one aircraft to train one pilot. It you would like me to expand, the reason was that pilots were trained on multiple types before training on the combat models. This means that there was redundancy in the training aircraft and instructing pilots.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "more pilots were allocated to squadrons then the aircraft (26 to 20)." Huh? What are the numbers for? Which is which?
26 pilots to 20 aircraft. Meaning there were always, in theory, more pilots in squadrons then aircraft. This was true for all squadrons, meaning that some squadrons not so heavily engaged may still have had additional pilots assigned to them.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "205 were undergoing further instruction although already qualified." Now, my guess here is, this is a reference to the OTUs, or "finishing school" of a sort; if somebody who knows more about it can clarify...?
That was a type, sorry. Should have been 20% were undergoing further instruction although already qualified. Yes, I think you are correct, but I thought this would be too much information, and I could not readily find the actual name of the course.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How many instructor pilots & a/c did the RAF have? I'd think that was a major bottleneck, before BCATP. (Go Canada!)
There were about 1800 instructor pilots.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally,

This rule could not be followed in close bomber escort duties though, since the fighter gave up tactical flexibility and the advantage of height."
That was not my edit!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't belong where it was; move it to "tactics", if you think it's important enough to keep. Trekphiler (talk)Flag of Canada09:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do I get my edits put back, or is the deletist editor still confused?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Bad manners. Guilty.
Mixing % & # isn't wrong, it's awkward; from a reading standpoint, it's easier to do 1 or the other. Your experience may be distorting your view (if that's the word). Not everybody (me, for 1) finds it so comfortable. Not less EZ, mind, just comfortable. Now, if that's a typo, I withdraw the complaint. For future reference, tho...
2500:4000. I got that idea; it's far from clear as written. Look at your reply. That is more like it. If you can condense the reply to 1 or 2 lines...
"26 to 20" Again, look at your reply. It's much clearer than as written.
1800 instructors. That is a number worth mentioning.
My suggestion: break it up into a couple of 'graphs, add a litte more explanation (not a lot, it only needs a few words), & put it back.
As for "tactics", it was part of what I took out. I wasn't attaching credit (or blame) to you, just saying "it's there if it's yours". Trekphiler (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was quoting the numbers from a source! I can't change that by inventing my own conversions of the data provided by the author. 1,800 instructors was just such a conversion, but I have no idea what the exact figure was, and not going to put that in the article. That is the difference in using percentages and raw figures. If the raw figure is unknown, the percentage is much better for use since they were usually dynamic (instructors came and went) as opposed to numbers (instructors assigned to the school unit establishment). Ordinarily where specific personnel is mentioned such as here, the number needs to be fairly spot-on unlike for example operational casualties where tens of thousands may have been involved and the exact figure will, in all probability, never be known.
A couple of graphs?! There are barely figures there for a sentence! I am not going to do a couple of graphs for such a small amount of data.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<--"What we have here is a failure to communicate." I have no beef with the numbers, just the presentation of them. And "a couple of graphs": paragraphs. If you have the source handy, you can still reword it, without fear of losing something in translation, or memory, or something. Sheesh. Chill out. Trekphiler (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Trek and others, I have to agree that this is a "tempest in a teapot" issue. Rewrite the submission in a more readable (see style guides for effective writing) fashion, provide some attribution and let it go. Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
Failure communicate? Style guide? I had condensed all of two paragraphs from an book by a UK journalist that had already been edited by a professional editor in the USA. Failure to contact the editor and ask for clarification first before demolishing the edit is more closer to the truth. Trekphiler, you don't need to bold words. I know the difference between graphs and paragraphs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spitfire vs 109

In trying to be objective I'm wondering where this came from:

On 22 November 1939 a Bf 109E-3 (Wk-Nr 1304 of JG 76) landed intact in France. Evaluated at RAF Farnborough, the Bf 109 was used in mock combats with Spitfire Mk Is. The RAF test pilots found the Bf 109 "superior in all aspects bar monoeuvrability and turning circle".

If this is the same report, and I have reason to believe it is:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

to say that the RAF pilots found the 109 to "be superior in all aspects" is a suspect statement to make. Can anyone tell me if Holmes was reading a different report? If not the conclusions he has reached are a complete contradiction to what I see here.Minorhistorian (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Mölders say this:

"the Spitfire was "excellent in the turn" but a "rotten dogfighter", due to the Spitfires "Carburettor engine". Mölders also noted, "in any vertical dogfight at constantly changing altitude it's either continually over-revving or never develops full power at all." [1]" or is he being misquoted slightly:
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
"The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full." http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html

It would be better to use the latter, which better describes his findings - the Holmes version implies that the Merlin was in a bad state of tune "or never develops full power at all" rather than illustrating that the two-pitch propeller is not allowing the Merlin to operate at peak efficiency "or else is not being used to the full" - there is a big difference.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I put this in. It was Holmes, and that bit of info. was included with a citation, but you deleted it! Holmes is quoting Mölders so Holmes is not implying anything. The text relating to the overevving were the words of Mölders, Holmes makes this clear. It appears the Germans used serveral types of constant speed propellers on the captured Spitfires, so Mölders was blaming the Merlin rather than than the prop.

I don't trust websites as a matter of course, so I have re-added the information as Holmes quoted Mölders. Dapi89 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I pushed out your citation, that wasn't intentional. However reading the paragraphs in full Mölders makes it quite clear and specific that in the Spitfire he was flying
"the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise)"
- I have cross checked and verified that this is what he wrote; I have another copy of the same flight report which wasn't taken off the web, and the translation is the same. I have no reason to doubt that Holmes is directly quoting Mölders; has he included this sentence in his summary? The Germans might have later tested Spitfires with constant-speed units but Mölders doesn't seem to mention that. There are some very good websites available that have a solid basis for the information provided, which can be cross checked and verified using other sources; Kurfurst is one of them. My initial reaction to the Holmes statement about the Farnborough flight test report saying "The RAF test pilots found the Bf 109 "superior in all aspects bar manoeuvrability and turning circle" Still stands; not once did the RAF Test pilots draw such conclusions
"Other sources have asserted that the report concluded that the Bf 109 was only inferior to the Spitfire in terms of manoeuvrability and turning circle. But overall the Bf 109 was "superior in all aspects"[2].??? By this standard of evidence anything can be proven - there is nothing quoted from the flight test reports - it is an assertion with nothing but a book reference, which not everyone has, to back it up. Where specifically do any of the flight test reports say this? If such conclusions had been reached by RAF test pilots in 1940 why not quote them, as Mölders has been quoted?Minorhistorian (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, given you seem to have done some thorough research I am not really in a position to challange this.

The only information directly regarding this aspect I have, is in the work by Holmes. The quote above is correct, Holmes did actually say this, (on page 57, if you are interested). I took his word for it as I hadn't any reason not to. I added in the text regarding "other sources", not as a direct quote by Holmes, but just to show some sources conflicted over the RAF evaluations of the '109- which is right in this instance. I wasn't trying to prove anything really.

What book sources are you using? (For "kurfurst" I mean). Does indentify the individual pilot(s) that flew the machine, and made these reports? Holmes doesn't. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was page 55 not 57. Dapi89 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The most comprehensive flight test report on a captured 109 that I have found is written out in William Green's Augsburg Eagle (Revised edition, McDonald and Jane's, 1980) pp 64-70. The 109 was WNr. 1304 and 35 hours of tests were carried out by three RAE pilots (names not mentioned) in May and June 1940. (If you can find a copy it is still a good read, although a lot of the information is now outdated by more thorough research by the likes of Jochen Prien/Peter Rodeike.) Coincidentally Mölders was flight testing a captured Spitfire at the same time. Incidentally Mölders flew one of the first operational 109F-1s over England in October 1940 Jochen Prien/Peter Rodeike Messerschmitt Bf109 F,G, and K Schiffer, 1993, pp 8, 9. He may well have shot down his 57th through to his 68th aircraft (eight Hurricanes, four Spitfires) using this aircraft Stammkennzeichen SG+GW. The article is getting pretty long and I don't know whether to include this or not.
Please understand I am not trying to attack either you or Holmes, nor am I "for" or "against" the Bf 109 versus the Spitfire; one of the reasons this article has been derated from History Good status is because of the number of un-cited paragraphs or

sensational language (i.e, matters of opinion) Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources." [[1]]

Adding a statement of opinion which is already flatly contradicted by direct quotes from British flight test reports, which can be read online , is just adding to this. I've made the same mistake here and on some other pages and other eagle eyed editors have corrected me! A lot of hard work has gone into this article and it is basically an excellent summary of the B of B. With a little more work it could be one of the best available webpages on the subject. (I understand your reservations about some of the rubbish which can be found on the net, but there are plenty of books which fit into the same category. There are some really well researched pages on the internet which are well worth using).Minorhistorian (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath and lack of Luftwaffe armour-piercing bomb?

Comments such as "Some modern military historians suggest"...gives the impression that this may be a minority view, which may not be the case. It is better to provide examples of who the historians are, and allow the reader to research supporting material.

The statement made about the Luftwaffe not having armour piercing bombs capable of dealing with the deck armour of British Battleships is quite erroneous; The "PC" and "PD" series http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html, especially the 500 pound bombs, capable of being carried by the Ju 87, were in use in 1940. Len Deighton, in particular, may be an excellent writer but many of the conclusions drawn in his book are nonsense. The Luftwaffe did a great deal of damage to the RN, especially its destroyers and cruisers, which were poorly armed against air attack, in the Mediterranean in 1941 and 1942. There is no reason to believe that the same might not have happened in 1940 in the North sea and Channel had air superiority been achieved. Then again, look at how many Allied ships that had been sunk or badly damaged by air attack in 1940 List of shipwrecks in 1940. Again, the case is hypothetical...Minorhistorian (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't claim a specialty in the area, but a 500pdr seems pretty small against a BB, to me, especially when the std SBD load for that was a 1000pd SAP. It's not "no AP", it's "no AP able to do enough damage". AFAIK, that's still an open question. Trekphiler (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the link given the Luftwaffe had heavier bombs, up to 1,600 lb, capable of doing more than enough damage to sink or cripple a BB; the bombs used by the Japanese to sink and damage USN BBs at Pearl Harbor weighed 800 kg (roughly 1,760 lbs), and the US BB had heavier deck armour than their British equivalents. http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/history/pearlharbor_facts.html I used a 500 pdr as an example of the minimum load that could be carried by the Ju 87, one of the aircraft types responsible for causing heavy damage to the RN in the Med. The Ju 87B was capable of carrying an 1,100 lb bomb on the fuselage rack http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/pc1000.htm and was potentially capable of doing a lot of damage; IMHO "no AP able to do enough damage" is still not correct.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm sure many of Deighton's conclusions are suspect or are superseded by more scholarly works, Macksey was also cited as a source for that argument and I'm not sure if it came from Deighton at all. It conflicts with his statement on p. 51 that "There would have been no insurmountable problems for invasion fleets and airborne units if the air were entirely German." Anyway, changes look good to me, thanks. . . dave souza, talk 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'm probably being a bit harsh on Deighton and I have only skimmed through "Fighter" for the first time in years, and I haven't read Macksey yet, so fair enough.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not gonna say GAF could not do it, just it's still an open question absent better sourcing. Somebody obviously thought it was problematic, or the issue would never have arisen. Trekphiler (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about naval ordnance, but a similar claim was noted to Paul Deichmann (see Luftflotte 2) during his writing of the Luftwaffe Operations in Support of the Army for the United States Historical Division (German Air Force Historical Project) in the 50s. This was noted by Dr. Alfred Price in his edited edition which is freely available in paperback.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do some more research when I have some spare time. However, the article in question says that in 1940 the Luftwaffe, unlike the Japanese during the destruction of the fleet at Singapore, did not have armour-piercing bombs, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml which is factually wrong. If there was a shortage of supply of these weapons, which is far more likely, then why not say so?

In a website on the development of German guided missiles and glide bombs: In 1940, the RLM adopted Kramer's control system utilizing the SD 1400X armor-piercing bomb. http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_germany_hr.html although this was an SAP rather than an AP weapon. My point still remains, although the authors state that the Luftwaffe had no AP bombs where is their evidence for saying so?Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Torygraph has been known to completely misrepresent their sources, as in the case of peppered moth evolution#Criticism and controversy, so it would be better to check the History Today article to see what the historians actually wrote. From the usual unreliable Deighton which I have to hand, p 143 notes that "Hitler had taken a personal interest in the Luftwaffe's bomb shortage (refusing until 12 October 1939 to allow the manufacture of more of them, on the grounds that Britain and France would soon make peace)", so at first glance a bomb shortage seems credible. As I recall, there was great reluctance in the Royal Navy at that time to accept that aircraft could sink a capital ship, and the current claim seems to restate that idea. The newspaper article is stirring it, pushing a claim which is of little relevance to the significance of the air battles. Again, Deighton p. 51 reports that Churchill did not take the invasion threat seriously, and any invasion at that stage of the war would have been cut to pieces, but if fighter command had been eliminated, bombers could have knocked out the other defenses one by one. From their reported statements, the naval historians Brian James and Dr Andrew Gordon set up a straw man claim to demolish alleged misperceptions of the importance of the air war. .. dave souza, talk 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree; there appear to be some silly, sweeping statements being made by James and Gordon, such as this one:

"Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack"".

I guess the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica didn't really sink several destroyers and cruisers in the Med. Or maybe they were all stationary? The Japanese fluked their attacks on the Prince of Wales and Repulse, not to mention the Hermes and the Vampire. The Americans somehow managed to sink four carriers at Midway. One or two ships were possibly sunk through air attack in Iron Bottom Sound and around Guadalcanal in 1942. And I have a suspicion that the Americans sank some ships by air attack around the Philippines in 1944? Mind you, it was just some lucky hits. For people who are supposed to be experts, if they have been quoted in context, they hold views about the possibilities of air attack which would have looked good in the 1930s.Minorhistorian (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. If that's expert research, I despair. I'd wonder what production of the SD1400 looked like in 7-9/40. Also, don't forget, Germany had issues with explosives production (not yet? or irrelevant to AP weaps?). Trekphiler (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it was more likely that the Luftwaffe may have been hampered by a shortage of supply of ordnance rather than a total lack thereof. Stephen Bungay makes the point in The Most Dangerous Enemy that the German war production was still way behind that of Britain in 1940, and that British industry was more efficient and more productive than the German, which is the complete opposite of the so-called Teutonic Efficiency inspired by Nazi propoganda (pp 94-95).Minorhistorian (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Teutonic Efficiency? Looking at the farcical state of aircraft production, I'm not surprised; even had Germany been at full stretch, I have a hunch Britain could have outproduced her. Trekphiler (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blenheim Attacks on Luftwaffe Air Bases

I just got this book; http://www.amazon.com/Bristol-Blenheim-Complete-History/dp/0859791017 Graham Warner writes:

"...a raid on 14 June by 18 aircraft, escorted by 24 Hurricanes, on the German-occupied aerodrome at Merville where more than 40 Ju 88s and six Me 109s had been seen..."
..18 Blenheims from Wattisham returned to attack Merville on the 22nd..."
"This type of target was to become increasingly important over the next few months and strikes on airfields were mounted in parallel with so-called 'cloud cover' attacks" (Warner, p. 234)
"...but enemy-occupied airfields were much harder to locate and the raids on them caused little damage. (Warner, p. 244)
"They (the Luftwaffe) frequently selected airfields on which many Blenheims could be seen at the dispersal sites - they were well aware that Blenheims were raiding their own airfields and the shipping and supplies being gathered in the Channel ports for the proposed invasion..." (Warner, p. 252)
"...enemy held airfields were attacked on 24 days by aircraft from 15, 107, 110, 139, and 218 Squadrons...(August and September 1940)
"The raids on enemy held airfields were usually unproductive...but occasionally they did produce worthwhile results...such as on 1 August when five of the 12 Blenheims sent to attack Haamstede and Evere (Brussels)...destroyed three of II.JG/27's Me 109s on the ground at the latter, killing Staffelkapitan Hauptmann Albrecht von Ankum-Frank, whose unit also lost two more 109s to Blenheim rear gunners." (Warner p. 253)

So, "Dizzy" Allen's statement about raids by a handful of Blenheims doing a great deal of damage were made under the assumption that no such raids were made; as it turns out that assumption was wrong, as was the assumption that a great deal of damage would have been inflicted, except for a few successful raids.Minorhistorian (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on Allen; I may have taken a liberty or 2. I do wonder about the nature of the attacks (low level? dusk/dawn only?); I'll have to have a look at Warner. Thanks for the source regardless. Trekphiler (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Blenheim units, especially those of 2 Group Bomber Command and Coastal Command, were really going through the mill at the time (poor sods); the airfield attacks were being made at medium to low altitudes, both in daylight and at night (Warner doesn't specify times in the text). As well as this they were expected to attack other targets in Germany and the occupied countries, attack shipping targets and the invasion ports, plus carry out reconnaissance missions AND they were expected to act as a spearhead against any invasion forces. Their life expectancy must have been similar to those of the RFC BE 2 crews in 1916. I'm just glad to have been able to use Graham Warner's work to help set the record straight.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So am I. It sounded intriguing. And yeah, talk about overwork. I got the sense Dowding thought about using Spits or Hurrys (when he said he hadn't the aircraft for it), which makes me wonder if he couldn't have used his own Blennies. (IIRC, he had 3-4 squadrons of them. Most were doing NF duty, I think; not very well, mind, but...) If only he'd had a British V-1. Might've been interesting... Trekphiler (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. Just something which I can't find at the moment, but there was a suggestion that cross channel fighter raids on German aerodromes were limited because of the overwhelming priority of not confusing the radar images that already gave a difficult image needing skilled interpretation. .. dave souza, talk 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Never heard that one before. Didn't RAF intro Pipsqueak IFF during the Battle? Trekphiler (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.qsl.net/vk2dym/radio/iff.htm
IFF was first introduced from late September to early October 1940 - IFF Mk I equipped fighters had a wire strung from the fuselage to each tailplane tip. On the Spitfire the wire emerged through a small terminal which can be seen as a small "dot" just forward of and slightly up from the red centre spot of the roundel. The wire was attached to the tip of the tailplane, just in front of the tip of the elevator's mass balance.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give it 'em back

Rewrote to "even then striking back at Germany." I'd add something about it being a political necessity for Winston to mention it, which was one reason BC kept hitting German cities to the end regardless the limited value, if I could figure out how to phrase it without getting way out of scope for the page. Trekphiler (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finger four

This wording has now gone (back?) into the tactics section "After the battle, RAF pilots adopted a variant on the German formations called the "finger four"." I recall there being a (now archived) discussion over this and it being decided that the "finger four" was the term for the German formation. The RAF variant as per Sailor Malan was different and had three files of four aircraft rahter than a Schwarm type formation. Can we get reference for this?--Sf (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Ahh, now there is a reference to Douglas Bader in The Most Dangerous Enemy:

Hugh 'Cocky' Dundas [...] helped Bader to work on squadron formations (the Duxford Wing) which resulted in 1941 in the invention of the 'finger four'; a re-discovery of Mölders' 'Schwarm' and a variant of the 'fours in line astern' introduced in 74 Squadron by 'Sailor' Malan in 1940.

p. 362.

I'm not sure which version of the four fighter formation was adopted by the RAF generally, but reading other accounts of RAF units in battle the impression I get is that Bader's formation was the most likely. Perhaps this passage should be included in the text to clarify?Minorhistorian (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Now edited and revised.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Hmmm the wording you've used might be a bit of a stretch based on the source you've given. There's a diagram of the Sailor Malan variation here [2] see page 55. From a text by Alfred Price - it suggests that the line astern variant became the standard RAF formation.--Sf (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have it, and I see what you mean; "finger four" Douglas Bader, formation adopted by Fighter Command appears to be the Malan version.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks by Epro 210

One of the more important facets of the opening stages of the Battle were the Luftwaffe attacks on airfields and the use of Bf 110s by Epro 210 as fighter bombers - both are worth describing and can hardly be construed as describing "every raid by both sides".Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The significance wasn't clear as written. It looked like an excuse for somebody less serious to start putting in every last bullet fired by every last aircraft, the usual refuge of the ignorant, who think more names equates with better information. Trekphiler (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a contentious issue

Apparently my edit of the lead was "contentious"

  • was the name "Battle of Britain" applied in the first instance in the past tense, or the present? (replace is->was)
  • was the strategic "effort" a German strategic air operation? (replace effort -> operation name)
  • was the German operation named "Battle of Britain", or Unternehmen Adlerangriff? (insert Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack"))

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See note on your talk page; this is the correct forum for discussion regarding a major change, especially regarding a lead paragraph that is nominally phrased correctly. Your edit woudl be appropriate in a second or third line of the lead not as the introductory sentence. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Most English speaking readers, which is the majority of those who read Wikipedia, will only know the most commonly used name the "Battle of Britain". Biased? Probably so, but there are not many people outside of Germany who would refer to this series of battles as anything else but the Battle of Britain or a language variation thereof. In 2008 the most commonly used name is still the B of B so changing the present tense (is) to the past (was) is pointless. The air attacks were a sustained effort, over several months, so again there's not much point in in changing or complicating the language - the sentence is a concise description of what happened. I agree that there could be some mention of Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") - this could feasibly be added in this way:

The plan was prepared by OKW. The invasion, code-named Seelöwe ("Sealion"), was scheduled for mid-September 1940 and called for landings on the south coast of Great Britain, backed by an airborne assault. The entire campaign was referred to as Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack").

Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? The very accepted practice is to include different names of the operations in the article lead if these exist. Given the Battle of Britain was created by a politician, the inclusion of the actual name of the operation seems a must to me, never mind the neutrality of the article. What "complicated language"?! I am suggesting replacing "effort" with "operation". This is an article in military history project, right? I mean, you don't want me to explain to you how every war is an "effort", do you? Even climbing into the cockpit for each pilot was an effort after a few sorties in a row, which is why I proposed operation to be a bit more specific for the benefit of the readers who may have thought the strategic "effort" was all British. The Battle of Britain was adopted in 1940. Naturally it still is this, but that hardly matters since we are writing about a historical and not a current event.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Your proposed changes;
"Battle of Britain was the name given in United Kingdom to the sustained strategic Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") by the Luftwaffe during the Summer and Autumn of 1940 to gain air superiority over the RAF's Fighter Command. The name derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
are grammatically confusing - the transition from English to German back to English with no clear differentiation make the whole sentence convoluted and confusing to read and it is complicating the language! It does not make it sufficiently clear that this was a "strategic operation". Nor does It clarify where the name Unternehmen Adlerangriff comes from. Who gave it this title? Was it Hitler? Was it Göring? Was it the Luftwaffe Generals? Was it those who planned the attacks? Is the Battle of Britain still known as Unternehmen Adlerangriff rather than Luftschlacht um England in Germany? To say that it can somehow be inferred that the "strategic "effort" was all British" when the sentence clearly reads that it was the Luftwaffe who were mounting the "effort" is a stretch. However, "operation" is a better military term. The first two sentences are there to say what this series of battles is popularly known as and where the name came from - simple, easy to understand. It is then possible to build on this introduction to further explain the battle from the POV of the protaganists, eg:
The Battle of Britain is the name given to the sustained strategic operation by the German Luftwaffe during the Summer and Autumn of 1940 to gain air superiority over the RAF's Fighter Command. The name derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Had the aerial operation known by the German forces as Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") been successful, the planned amphibious and airborne landings in Britain, codenamed Unternehmen Seelöwe (Sealion), would have followed. The Battle of Britain was the first major campaign to be fought entirely by air forces. It was the largest and most sustained bombing campaign attempted up until that date. The failure of Nazi Germany to destroy Britain's air defence or to break British morale is considered their first major defeat.

Minorhistorian (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my premise is that the operation was a German one in the first place, and only later was referred to as "Battle of Britain", and not even after the first time Churchill called it that, but after his speech was re-transmitted on the radio (by an actor I think).
How about this -
The Battle of Britain is the name given to the German Luftwaffe sustained strategic operation called Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") that took place during the Summer and Autumn of 1940 to gain air superiority over the RAF's Fighter Command. (Note: I think this statement of gaining air superiority is far more contentious because quite frankly I don't think the Luftwaffe knew exactly what the objective of the operation was) The English name derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Had the aerial operation known by the German forces as Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") been successful, the planned amphibious and airborne landings in Britain, codenamed Unternehmen Seelöwe (Sealion), would have followed. The Battle of Britain was the first major campaign to be fought entirely by air forces. (Note: contrast the statement here with the air superiority statement in the first paragraph - which was it?) It was the largest and most sustained bombing campaign attempted up until that date. (Note: Now consider assertion of gaining air superiority, or being a largest bombing campaign with trying to destroy air defences or breaking morale - all different goals, requiring different means and methods, hence no definitive operational objective can be stated in the lead) The failure of Nazi Germany to destroy Britain's air defence or to break British morale is considered their first major defeat.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My take: The Battle of Britain is the name given to the aerial campaign that raged over England during the Summer and Autumn of 1940 when the RAF's Fighter Command confronted the German Luftwaffe who had launched a sustained strategic operation called Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack"). The name of the campaign derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

Yes, that is great.
However, I do think that the inclusion of four different objectives that reflected the lack of a clearly determined goal for the campaign in the lead (second paragraph) is also something that needs to be resolved. Air superiority was of course the pre-requisite for a seaborne invasion, so logically lined to the reason for the entire campaign. I would alike to suggest that this be stated in the lead, such as "a lack of clear campaign goal for the operation dominated reasons for German failure to subdue either the RAF or the British leadership and population by September 1940" etc. What do you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe somewhere else in the article under strategic goals but in the lead?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
Well, I read that lead, and I thought, what the !@#$ was it the Luftwaffe trying to do?! Was it air superiority, bombing, demoralisation? You need to know that many people do not read past the lead section ;o\--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The explanation of the military objectives can be more fully explained but in trying to put everything into a precis is difficult. Here's a new take:

The Battle of Britain is the name given to the aerial campaign that raged over England during the Summer and Autumn of 1940 when the RAF's Fighter Command confronted the German Luftwaffe who had launched a sustained strategic operation, Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") as the first stage in obtaining aerial superiority prior to an invasion of the British Isles. The name of the campaign derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." FWiW, this is mainly wordsmithing but a quote or citation can be used ot verify the statements. Bzuk (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

No, I think this is fine. The article, I believe, deals with the conflicting and changing Luftwaffe objectives; no need to pile everything into the lead. Probably no need to bold the translation of the German codename either ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Britain is the name given to the aerial campaign that raged over England during the summer and autumn of 1940 when the RAF's Fighter Command confronted the German Luftwaffe who had launched a sustained strategic operation, Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack") as the first stage in obtaining aerial superiority prior to an invasion of the British Isles. The name of the campaign derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." FWiW, minor tweaks to capitals, italics... Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
Or how about this which, hopefully, covers many of the points raised by mrg3105 and also indicates that there were other parts of the UK which were targeted?
The Battle of Britain is the name given to the aerial campaign waged mostly over England by the German Luftwaffe as Unternehmen Adlerangriff ("Operation Eagle Attack"), and which was opposed by the RAF's Fighter Command. This sustained strategic campaign which evolved through the summer and autumn of 1940 was an essential first stage in obtaining aerial superiority prior to an invasion of the British Isles. The best known title of the campaign derives from an 18 June 1940 speech in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Just a thought...:-) Minorhistorian (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge fan of this version, mainly because of the placement of phrase "which was opposed" as this implies the RAF opposed the strategy not the Luftwaffe. Combining quotes and italics is also not recommended. The sustained strategic campaign did not evolve through the summer and autumn but was a series of attacks, oh, forget it, this doesn't work... see my later comments.
No this is tedious in the extreme leave the opening sentence as it was. I vote to reject the changes suggested by user mrg3105--Sf (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think you're right here, all these changes to come back around to the same place... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
I'm thinking we're running in little hamster circles here...there are better ways of spending internet time productively. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A campaign is a series of operations.
Sure, leave the quotes out since the phrase in the brackets is only a translation.
However, I'm not sure why you suggest that the name of the German campaign be left out of this lead where it is present in case of every other German operation.
I'm also not sure why all the different parts of the campaign need to be covered in the first two paragraphs--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
German campaign be left out of this lead where it is present in case of every other German operation Uh, no it isn't - the Battle of Stalingrad is the Battle of Stalingrad not Operation Blue --Sf (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't start me on the Battle of Stalingrad! ;o)
What I meant is that where a German operation codename is available, it is added to the lead. The Battle of Stalingrad is another one of the woefully mis-named articles where there needs to be an article on Operation Blau (strategic), and a separate article on Battle for Stalingrad (tactical) for which there was no codename.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
mrg3105 has stated where a German operation codename is available, it is added to the lead. With respect can I ask why? e.g. Can you provide a source for this as a historiographical convention? or alternatively is this stated in any Wikpedia guidelines? With respect there is a tendency in some quarters (among teenage boys particularly? - to extrapolate from my own youth) to glamourise German military terminology when discussing the Second World War. This stretches to things like operation names, terms for formations, terms for military ranks (particularly those of the Waffen SS) etc. This may be unfair on my part but the initial reaction is to see this as a manifestation of the same phenomenon. --Sf (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it has been a long time since I was a teenager, and I can assure you that I have no intention to glamourise the German military of the Second World War.
There is a great deal of inconsistency in naming operational article in Wikipedia. From a historical point of view, a historical event needs to be named for the name it was given by its initiators, this being the logical conclusion of using the first name available for it. However, in the Wikipedian naming conventions guideline the use of most commonly recognised English name is advocated. The Battle of Britain is of course the best known name of air operations during that particular period in the 1940s, though it is neither the first name given to the operations of the German air offensive, nor is it the RAF name(s) used for the operations, but one, as the lead informs, given by a politician for popular consumption. There was a discussion in the MilHist Project naming conventions on use of operation codenames, and although it is agreed that they are not the best for use in titles as the MoS suggests, they were never the less the more accepted names for the events in most cases. (I'll try and find that discussion). However, in the case where a name exists, but is not well known, the convention is to include it in the lead to reflect neutral approach to referencing the information being presented since the reader needs to understand the context of the subject, in this case that the air offensive was a German operation and that it had a codename, as indeed many British operations had a codename and are known by them, and used in the German Wikipedia. By the way Adlertag (Eagles day) was the codename for the start of the planned air superiority offensive on 8 August 1940.
So, as you hopefully will appreciate, the "phenomena" is called logic, regardless of iots actual application in Wikipedia which seems to be often lacking as in the case of the use of German codenames that begin with Fall. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course the B of B was a Campaign (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) 2. Mil.orig.; now, A continuous series of military operations, constituting the whole, or a distinct part of a war, which went through several phases, some of which were planned, some of which were "tacked on" (in a manner of speaking) eg: London, which was originally to be left alone, became a target. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) Evolve I. trans. To unfold, unroll; to open out, expand. If the B of B wasn't an evolving campaign what then was it? Surely in opposing the Luftwaffe the RAF was opposing the strategy as well as the physical attacks and the aircraft? The German name for the operation is included. You say that many people don't read past the introduction (which is their own choice) so why not give a reasonable summary of the campaign in the first two paragraphs? I can't honestly add anything else to this. If it isn't possible to come to some agreement then it would be better to leave well alone.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced regarding the arguments on the use of operational names and I do not see the logic in terms of this environment; an internet encyclopaedia intended to introduce topics to the general reader. If this was a text aimed at students on a staff officer course at military college then I might concede a requirement to refer to operations and the associated code names. But I suspect that "red-tabs" are thin on the ground around here. --Sf (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone who reads history but doesn't have much formal traning in it, I'd like to put in my two cents that including the name of the operation in the lead is entirely unnecessary. The common name for the Battle of Britain, in English, is unequivocally "the Battle of Britain." (In fact, it's even de:Luftschlacht um England in German, apparently.) The code name, given its length and the necessity of repetition in English, seem to serve no purpose in the introduction but to make everything harder to read—it's a detail that belongs further down in the article. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually we have no idea who reads the articles. The German operational name is given half-way down the page! An "effort" is not the same as an air offensive with a codename, something only a few strategic operations received during the war, among then an attack on France, and the three strategic offensives in USSR. In my mind the "effort" does not relay to the reader the same intensity. However, I'm done here.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My nickel? (Inflation, doncha know...) As originally changed, agreed, grammatically confusing.
"name given to the sustained strategic operation " Awkward; also, in question if it's actually strategic, grand tactical, or tactical.
What about this?
"sustained effort, part of a strategic operation, called Unternehmen Adlerangriff (Operation Eagle Attack) by the Germans, to achieve air superiority as a prelude to Unternehmen Seelöwe (Operation Sealion). The name derives..."
Add a mention of confused objectives & mention of disorganized execution (attacks on Channel convoys, CH/CHL, ABs, & finally London, with no clear aim), bad intel, & a switch to terror bombing (The Blitz), & leave the details for the body of the article. No? Trekphiler (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of personalities

In reading through the article again it struck me that there were no images of some of the main personalities. It seems to me that this is a major omission, considering the influence that many of these people had on the B of B. I've placed them where I thought it would be appropriate. Any thoughts or improvements to the layouts?Minorhistorian (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BF-110s.jpg

The image Image:BF-110s.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism; time to make this a semi-protected page?

There has been a fair amount of vandalism done to this article by single-brain celled idiots; would it be worthwhile making this article semi-protected to discourage further stupidity? Minorhistorian (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The levels aren't yet that high that it can't be kept on top of by reverting - and not all the edits that get reverted are vandalism but are frequently good faith attempts to change the article by eg adding Poland to the belligerents. You can try listing it at WP:RFPP, but I suspect that the request will be declined. David Underdown (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)