Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

GA Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.

  1. "Soon after, during a cross-country flight, he landed on a quiet stretch of autobahn and ran behind a tree to relieve himself." Can an inline citation be added for the information in this paragraph? I doubt somebody could make this story up but a reader may want to refer to it.Y Done
  2. "In July, in Vienna, he was given his final flight training and received an outstanding evaluation[10][11]." Inline citations should go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. Fix all of the other occurrences throughout the article (including ones like "No one followed me and I returned to Leeuwarden." [13]").Y Done
  3. "Another account recalled how Marseille once ignored an order..." This also needs an inline citation. Also if "Expecting nothing but "a well done Jochen" when he landed, he was given a thorough dressing down." is part of a quote, it should be cited as well; if not, reword "dressing down" for those readers who may not know what it means.Y Done
  4. "Steinhoff transferred Marseille,[17] to Jagdgeschwader 27 on December 24, 1940" Remove the comma and move the inline citation to the end of the sentence.Y Done
  5. "He scored two more kills on the 23 and April 28" Reword to "on April 23 and 28".Y Done
  6. "Marseille persisted, and created a unique self-training program for himself, both physical and tactical, which resulted not just in outstanding situational awareness, marksmanship and confident control of the aircraft, but also in a unique attack tactic that preferred a high angle deflection shooting attack and shooting at the target's front from the side, instead of the common method of chasing an aircraft and shooting at it directly from behind." This could use an inline citation.Y Done
  7. The quote in the box by Adolf Galland should be sourced as well.Y Done
  8. "Marseille's excellent eyesight made it possible..." Was his eyesight better than other people? If so this should maybe be mentioned in his early life section and maybe include a source as well. Perhaps "Marseille also drank an abnormal amount of milk and shunned sunglasses, to improve his eyesight." should be included before this statement for the benefit of the reader.Y Done
  9. There are a few brief single sentences/small paragraphs that would probably benefit from being merged with other ones or being expanded on with more information. The "Memorial" section should be modified a bit more to merge some of the statements.Y Done I made a bulleted list out of the items since they are disjunctive.MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Add a caption for Image:Bf109F-4 Gelbe14 Ma JG27 kl96.jpgY Done
  11. "On September 30, 1942, Hauptmann Marseille was leading his Staffel on a Stuka escort mission [32][33], during which no contact with enemy fighters was made While" This sentence is missing a period at the end.Y Done
  12. "The commission’s report (Aktenzeichen 52, Br.B.Nr. 270/42) concluded that the crash was caused by damage to the differential gear, which caused an oil leak. Then a number of teeth broke off the spur wheel and ignited the oil. Sabotage or human error was ruled out.[37]" If this is directly from the report then it needs quotation marks.N Not done The commission report is a two page German document which details the technical issues/background, steps taken for investigation and a summary of findings. The three sentences in the article are the condensed reflection of what the report is stating.MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. "Adrian Jacobus Botha who crash landed his aircraft.[39]." Remove the extra period after the inline citation.Y Done
  14. "of the 26 claims made by JG 27 on 1 September 1942..." Full dates should be wikilinked.Y Done
  15. In his death section, can you include any available information about what happened to his fiancé? Did she have a response to his death? Unfortunately I have no information regarding her immediate reaction to his death. The only reference to Hannelies Küppers I have ever found in literature is that, she together with Marseilles mother, attended a reunion of fighter pilots after World War II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section to the "memorial" section to reflect this meeting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Altogether, the article was interesting to read and didn't have too many problems. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. Most of the above issues should be easy to fix and not take too long. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

first fixes!MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job with addressing the above issues and adding more information about his fiancé. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I made a few minor corrections concerning spacing/inline citations. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced and neutral.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the terms "RAF" and "British"

To avert further misunderstandings and/or edit wars:

Non-British personnel in RAF formations during WW2 fell into several categories. They were either:

  1. individuals who had joined the RAF (e.g. Adolph Malan)
  2. on "loan" to the RAF under the pre-war Short Service Commission Scheme from a Dominion air force (e.g. Paterson Clarence Hughes...note the remarks about his uniform!)
  3. individual Dominion air force personnel assigned to an RAF squadron (e.g. Clive Caldwell in 1941-42)
  4. members of a Dominion Article XV squadron (e.g. No. 400 Squadron RCAF)
  5. members of another Dominion air force squadron operating under RAF control (e.g. SAAF squadrons with the Desert Air Force).

I won't get into the thorny issue of the status of personnel from occupied Europe...let's just say it is a matter of controversy.

Regards, Grant | Talk 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be fairly clear-cut; Marseille was engaged in an action over England on his first operational sorties during the Battle of Britain, encountering an RAF pilot (I am sure he did not enquire as to his ancestry or country of origin at the time) who happened to be flying a Hurricane fighter aircraft. The original editor made allusion to the RAF pilot being an experienced (or skilled) flyer. What other possible reading do you have of the passage in question? FWIW (could this be a "tempest in a teacup" issue?) Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
Have to agree with Bzuk nothing wrong with the statement that it was a RAF pilot flying a Hurricane appears to be a statement of fact. Not sure about experienced tho - do we know his name he could have been on his first mission! MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
See, for example, my point 3 above. An RAF plane does not necessarily = an RAF pilot. Grant | Talk 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention of "going to war over this!". The revert was to provoke some clarification. It was not the "pilot" issue that irritated me, I couldn't care less about that. It was just the removal of "RAF" from the text. Although for arguments sake the odds (nearly 4 to 1) are heavily in favour of it being a British RAF pilot. Considering also the Polish units were first made operational on 30 August 1940 (or at least those equipped with Hurricanes) and that Marseille scored this kill six days before, it was probably a Brit. Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Oh - the experienced issue. Well Marseille thought he was experienced, though Marseille himself was engaging the enemy for the first time, so what did he know! The only "evidence" of the skill of this pilot in literature is in Weal and Kurowski's works. The dogfight lasted for a full four minutes which according to them was hard fought, hence the text. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the dogfight lasted four long minutes then both pilots were near the same level of skill. The RAF guy was probably just as new to the game as Marseilles. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly Wübbe states that the first kill was a Spitfire and not a Hurricane?! Do note that according to Wübbe, no official German records exist for the first 7 aerial claims. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit annoyed! I compared Kurowski and Wübbe and they don't match! Example: Kurowski pages 129 to 133 date February 8, 1942, the reader gets the impression that Marseille shoots down 3 P-40 directly before the eyes of the Geschwader over the airfield of Martuba. On page 220 Kurowski claims that Marseille shot down four P-40 over the airfield of Martuba?! One of the pilots shot down was Flight Sergeant Hargreaves. Wübbe on page 31 is inline with the first two P-40 over Martuba airfield, including the story about Hargreaves. However according to Wübbe the second two P-40 were claimed in the afternoon over the Bay of Bomba. Also note that according to Wübbe the records for kills 15 to 38 (this includes the first two claims of February 8, 1942) are missing from the German Archives.

Assuming Wübbe is truthful about his statements and he actually used the available records form the Archives, then I can only deduce that Kurowski has written a nice story, however lacking any evidence and is most likely not true. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Hans Ring, Jagdgeschwader 27, page 153 regarding the action on February 8, 1942 Ring is inline with Wübbe (only two shot down)! Accept for the minor detail that initally 7 Curtiss were reported but they turned out to be Hurricanes. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the type (thought it would be nice) is all that important. Hurricane or Spitfire, it was the first kill. Dapi89 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well any detail is important, if it is being specified in the text. Likewise, "probably a Brit" does not mean it was a British pilot. Also, even if it was a UK national, it may have been a Fleet Air Arm pilot, many of whom were attached to the RAF in 1940. "RAF" is not acceptable shorthand for all of the Allied personnel in the Battle of Britain. Attention to detail is important for the credibility of the article. Grant | Talk 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but in the context of the information available. Some sources conflict over the type, so we don't know for sure. Marseille may have misidentified it making this debate irrelevant anyway. Having the exact type of aircraft destroyed on his first mission doesn't ruin the credibility of the article - it isn't essential. To satisfy everyone perhaps this should be listed "Spitfire/Hurricane"? Dapi89 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

I dont see what the problem is with him being an RAF pilot whatever his background, he was flying in an RAF aircraft, under RAF control and unless you know his name the rest is speculation. On the 24 August 22 aircraft were lost by the RAF but only six pilots and four air gunners were lost or killed. Some of them can be discounted by being in the wrong place and most crashed on land. Assuming that it did crash into the sea then the possibilities could be:

  • P/O Eugene Seghers a Belgian with No 32 Squadron was shot down into the sea on the 24th of August by a Bf 109 near Elham at 16:30hrs in his Hurricane I (V6567). He got away with an enforced bath, he went on patrol the next day and had his first success three days later.
  • P/O P.Zenker from Poland was with No 501 Squadron. He was reported 'Missing' on the 24th of August 1940. He was shot down in his Hurricane I (L1865) during combat with some Do 17's and Bf 109's near Dover at 10:15hrs.
  • Sgt G.Hill from No 65 Squadron escaped injury when his Spitfire I (R6884) was shot down on the 24th of August 1940 of Margate at 15:35hrs.

Apologise for the original research! - so he was not Fleet Air Arm but could be Belgian of Polish, if it was Seghers the Belgian then he was an experienced airmen with the Belgian Air Force before he joined the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

P/O Zenker already had two "kills" to his name, a Ju 87 and Bf 109 and was considered an experienced pilot. Most Polish combat flyers had as much as 2,000 hrs in their logbooks before coming to England. FWIW, congrats to all for the FA rating! Bzuk (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Milborne, you say "whatever his background, he was flying in an RAF aircraft, under RAF control and unless you know his name the rest is speculation". Well exactly; it is speculative and misleading to refer to anyone who flew an aircraft ordered from a manufacturer by the RAF as being "RAF"/"British". One consequence of such assumptions/speculations/abbreviations is that they (often inadvertently) feed/serve a perceived tendency for British (usually English) people/institutions to claim credit for people and things who/that were not theirs to claim. For instance, few people now realise, that about one quarter of the people in "RAF" formations during the war were Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. As a citizen of another vast and mostly empty Commonwealth realm, I feel quite strongly about this, as, I suspect, do many others. Grant | Talk 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not say British I said an RAF pilot - which he was. I disagree with comments about percieved tendency etc as I think you are putting 21st century values into the 1940s. But I will have to agree to diagree about that point as it is not relevant to this article. I also have a COI issue so will not comment any further. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is: that usage of "RAF pilot" is tendentious, controversial and unbecoming of WP. Over and out from me too. Grant | Talk 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

British Commonwealth air force ranks

Please be careful with these. Those prone to confusion, in order of seniority, are:

Note also that the South African Air Force (like the USAAF) did not use the same system, preferring to use army ranks. Grant | Talk 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

USAAF

I have done some more reading and it is likely that the statement, that all of Marseille's claims over North Africa were against the British Commonwealth's Desert Air Force, is not necessarily true. At least one victory was over a USAAF P-40. I will present the data and references some time later. The timeframe of interest here falls into the same timeframe that Russel Brown is questioning. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wübbe states that 57th Fighter Group USAAF was involved in the following engagements: 2 September 1942, 3 September 1942, 6 September 1942 and 15 September 1942. Wübbe directly linked only one of Marseille's victories (2 September 1942, Lieutenant MacMarrel) to the 57th Fighter Group. Nevertheless when comparing claims of JG 27 to losses on the Allied side, one has to include the American losses as well. I think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
57th Wing says that the 57th Fighter Group wasn't operational until October. That is backed up by the official US chronology, which says October 7. Could Wübbe have his dates mixed up? Grant | Talk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Brown is specifically discussing one action on 15/9/42, which only involved No. 239 Wing (at that time 3 Sqn RAAF, 112 Sqn RAF and 450 Sqn RAAF). In September 1943, some squadrons from the 57th FG became part of 239 Wing, which may be where Wübbe has erred.
And unless MacMarrel was a USAAF officer attached to 2 Sqn SAAF on an individual basis, I doubt that the 57th FG was involved in the action of 2 September. Grant | Talk 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I've found the answer. The USAAF official history (p. 27) says "elements" of the 57th FG were in combat with "RAF formations" from July. They flew over 150 sorties while attached to DAF units during the First Battle of El Alamein (p.30). Regards, Grant | Talk 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Great find! So one cannot rule out that Marseille (and others form JG 27) could have engaged with USAAF fighters in the timeframe July - October 1942. This is theoretically possible. Does Russel Brown include USAAF losses in this timeframe too? Do I understand correctly that the most notable discrepancy is 15 September 1942? Because according to Wübbe combat with elements of the 57th Fighter Group took place on that day? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The USAAF official history linked above is not exactly clear, but if I understand it correctly, individual pilots from the 57th FG were scattered around the DAF squadrons, to get combat experience. The report of 150+ sorties by 57th FG pilots during 1st Alamein at the end of July suggests about 10-15 pilots, among about six DAF P-40 squadrons.
For a few different reasons, I believe they were flying DAF Kittyhawks in July-September, rather that USAAF Warhawks. For instance, the USAAF official history mentions that "traffic congestion" was already a problem at DAF airfields, and there was backlog in airfield construction, even before the Americans were combat ready, so it would not have made sense to add USAAF aircraft to the mix, when pilots were the main shortage being experienced by DAF squadrons and it was common and sensible practice among the Commonwealth squadrons to pool and exchange personnel: e.g. many RAAF personnel flew with RAF squadrons, and at least two that I can think of served with SAAF squadrons. Given that the SAAF squadrons generally seem to have suffered the worst losses, it seems likely that the USAAF pilots were training with South African squadrons. I can't find mention of individual USAAF personnel in the Australian official histories.
I don't have Brown's book at hand, but his attention to detail is impressive, almost obsessive and he is meticulous in identifying which Allied and Axis units were involved in each action, where possible. He definitely states that only JG27 and 239 Wing (comprised at the time of 3 and 450 Sqns RAAF + 112 Sqn RAF) were involved in the action of 15/9/42. I'm almost certain he doesn't mention USAAF personnel serving with 239 Wing that day, and I would expect any loss or damage suffered by them would be included in the overall summary for the Wing. From what I remember, Brown details those killed on 15/9/42 by name, those wounded, those whose aircraft was damaged and is even able to guess which P-40 pilots were erroneously claimed without actually being downed (much to the amusement, he says, of the Allied veterans who were still alive when he was researching the book).
So I would be interested to hear more details of Wübbe's description of the combat between JG 27 and USAAF personnel that day, such as the location, the Allied units involved, his sources, etc. Grant | Talk 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more links about the 57th FG in Africa, [1]. Note that the 57th fighter group was in action on 15 September 1942, "W of Alamien". Dapi89 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Those USAAF combat chronologies are notorious for a lack of generosity towards non-US units/personnel (to say the least). I suspect that "along with RAF" is a weasel way of saying "flying DAF aircraft". For instance, the USAAF official history says:
  • p15, the US Air Forces Middle East commander, General Lewis H. Brereton first arrived in Cairo on June 28; p28 says that 10 days after arriving, Brereton was sending "qualified observers" to DAF units.
  • p33 mentions the Arnold-Portal-Towers agreement, which stipulated (inter alia) that Americans should should serve only in homogeneous US units, but that this was "justifiably violated" with the 11th BG and 57th FG.
  • p35 the 66th FS of the 57th FG being attached to 239 Wing, but not until October 6.
Grant | Talk 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: What puzzles me is the statement from Wübbe that MacMarrel flew the Curtiss P-40F, whereas the majority of P-40s from DAF units are referred to as Kittyhawk IA (P-40E). Here in Wikipedia the Curtiss P-40 article states that The P-40F/L was extensively used by U.S. fighter groups operating in the Mediterranian Theater. I wonder if this could be an indication that indeed some USAAF operated P-40s were in combat as early as September 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wübbe has assumed that USAAF personnel = USAAF P-40s, which I think is incorrect, for the reasons stated above. I have not yet located a reliable source for this theory, but some WWW discussion boards/forums/etc actually state that Americans flew DAF aircraft while attached to DAF squadrons in July-September 42. Grant | Talk 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict of national variety of English to use in this article

According to the Manual of Style, “In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.” In checking this article’s history, the first major editor to make a clear contribution was Sherurcij, who I believe is Canadian. Canadians employ a mixed style of generally recognized American- and British-style spellings. Please see MOS (spelling). Oh, and please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to the last part. Are we then allowed to use both? Dapi89 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS (spelling) is a good reference for what is preferred "Canadian-speak". Note that it lists the most common version first, where more than one variety gets used. If it's too confusing, then I'd recommend using British spellings, since those were the style to first stand out. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I speaks Canajan, and can helps sortout 'da artcle! (LOL) FWIW, you may regret turning Canadians lose on Wikipedia. Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
Well, they do say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... I suppose that also extends to Canucks. :P Askari Mark (Talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic" makes one consider how much the British lost to Marseille compared to other nations that speak English. This article creeps very close to having strong British ties to the subject. Me, Awm 'Murrican. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the mixture of US and British English in this article I've made a few edits to standardise to the British variety. We need to have one or the other and since there was a mix it seemed logical to move to British since most of his combat was with British Commonwealth forces, i.e. the article has stronger British ties than American ties. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. It should be noted — without meaning to offend my many Canadian mates, that in the words of English in the Commonwealth of Nations, "Canadian English is regarded as one of two sub-varieties of North American English", rather than anything that could be called "Commonwealth English".

And, with my tongue inclined slightly towards my cheek, considering the preponderance of SAAF units in North Africa and that South African fighter pilots were probably the majority of Marseille's victims in terms of nationality, perhaps the standard should be South African English. Grant 04:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Bzuk, I'm aware of the date preference system, however last time I looked the jury was still out of whether to link or not to link day-month fragments. FWIW, my usual (pragmatic) way of working is to standardise to whatever is most common within an article and this had - and still has - a mixture of day-month fragments linked or not linked. As with the style of English, we need to be consistent. Another practical issue with linking day-month fragments is date ranges. Your linking in "Between 16-25 September Marseille failed to increase his score due to a fractured arm" works fine if you have British date preferences ("16-25 September") but if you have US preferences it comes out "16-September 25", when the correct form would be "September 16-25". Nothing anyone can do about that technically I don't think, just another illustration of the limits of wikilinking dates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

French Huguenot Ancestry

He was of French huguenot ancestry? No German ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.238.96 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here Huguenot#Asylum in Germany and Scandinavia. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill no. 18

The description is a little difficult to desipher. Does it mean the Germans and Italians claimed three each or three altogether? I take it the information is from Wübbe? Dapi89 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I added one word, together. I hope this makes it easier to understand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)