Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

My "take"

• As the contingencies of war demanded more pilots, training was reduced and pilots received less training in gunnery. S/L Zurakowski related that the young pilots he had flown with in 234 Squadron had almost no time to fire their guns before being committed to action. A cursory orientation flight was simply not enough in his mind. The entire first batch of 100 Polish fighter pilots that were sent to England were all assigned to Fairey Battle units as replacements. It took months before the order was rescinded and experienced fighter pilots were reassigned to RAF Fighter Command.
• The Battle was not reassigned to training duties until 1941, too late in the "Battle," to be used as a trainer in either England or the "colonies."
• The mix of pilots was more of an issue as RN, Coastal Command and bomber pilots were also summarily assigned to fighter squadrons without even the modicum of an orientation flight. The operational mix of experienced and new pilots also caused some problems as the number of aircraft were limited and many pilots found that they did not have an aircraft assigned to them. Often pilots "grabbed" the first available aircraft on a scramble, and repaired kites were in great demand.
• There were many problems that resulted in a a lack of experienced pilots including the RAF losses over France, but the introduction of experienced expatriate Czech, Polish and French pilots was not expedited. The RAF also did not have the cadre of veterans from the Spanish Civil War and earlier aerial campaigns that swelled the ranks of the Luftwaffe.
• Find some verifiable and solid reference sources to back up your above contentions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant see anything in the article about so if needed Chester Wilmot places RAF Fighter Command losses in France between 10 May and 20 June as: 463 aircraft and 284 pilots (Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, p. 39). Ellis, the campaign official historian, places RAF total losses as 931 planes and "1,526 killed in action, died of wounds or injury, lost at sea, wounded, injured or made prisoners of war. Of these a very high proportion were pilots and aircrews."(Ellis, The War in France and Flanders, p. 324 accessible here). The RAF place their losses, in the Battle of France from mid-May to early June 1940, at "nearly 1,000 aircraft destroyed, 320 pilots killed or missing and 115 pilots taken prisoners of war." (source, p. 99 (page 9 of the pdf however)). The RAF history also notes "The destruction of 2 more Fighter Command squadrons during the disastrous defence of Norway in April and May 1940 exacerbated the shortage of aircraft and pilots."(Ibid, p. 100/10).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Better main picture?

anyone else think the main picture could be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Day, 15 September

I was thinking about doing a 'battle article' about this day of madness. Yet the phrase re-directs here. Is there anyway to overcome this so a stand-alone article on this day's events can be done? BTW, does anyone think that staring it is a good idea? I did one on Adlertag (Eagle Day) which is currently at GA. Dapi89 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion for/against; unlike Adler Tag, it has less significance to me. (Unless you mean to deal with the ceremonies, in the fashion of Veterans Day.) As for how, wouldn't just opening the redirect & filling with new content do it? Might need a hatnote on your new page to direct here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the largest air battle until 1943 (Kursk) demanded an article. I appreciate that it may have less significance in comparison to Adlertag.

No idea how to do that. I am pig-ignorant at technical stuff. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree it's a good idea. It just hadn't occured to me. ;p

As to how to get at it, I presume you know how to get here by redirect. When you do, click the "redirect" link & open that page for editing. (I hope that's vaguely clear. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. The reason "Battle of Britain Day" is being redirected is because a redirect page was created on 12 September 2008 - I have placed a Delete request on this page which has also been automatically placed on Tntdj's (the editor who created the redirect) talk page. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Duh, took me long enough!! The page is already titled "Battle of Britain Day" - simply remove the redirect and request for deletion and start your new page...Battle of Britain Day now started. Lead on McDuff.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Dapi89 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

3000 pilot allocated to Battle and Defiants?

This is complete and utter nonsense, and amounts to an extraordinary claim, and as such requires a lot more than a single footnote to insert into this article. Please provide some corroborating sources. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have made your point, now that the controversy is to be explored, do not go back to reverse anything in the article until all voices are heard. First issue is that the statement is cited and that there is no requirement to have multiple sources for a statement. Is the source reliable and verifiable is all that Wiki demands. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

There were 26 squadrons flying Fairey Battles which works out to approximately 650 pilots. There were relatively few Defiant squadrons, six operational at the time of the Battle of Britain which works out to be another 150 pilots counting reserves and replacements. The total of 800 still falls far short of the estimated 3,000 pilots. Could the original source be referring to the number of pilots that would be released from all non-essential bomber, army cooperation and naval units, which probably does come close to the hypothetical figure. Let's check the actual source to see if it is quoted correctly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph I removed states: There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.{ref name="Ansell pp. 712–14"/} yet the article previously states that there was 9000 ( how many were overage?) pilots in the RAF but only 30% were in operational squadrons and Fighter Command had 1130 pilots, so how is it possible that 3000 pilots were sitting idly by manning Battle and Defiant Squadrons? The statement is absurd. The Defiant went on to become an effective night fighter, and the Fairey Battle was still required for use as a light bomber in the event of an invasion, and had a long and productive life as a training aircraft and for secondary duties such as a target tug. I'm sorry but it is impossible to build a coherent article if every nonsensical statement is given equal weight. This kind of incoherent junk would never be tolerated in many other articles and should be removed from this one ASAP as it is completely and obviously false.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no one is interested in your opinion of the sources as you are not qualified to assess them, much less to do so using other information from a wikipedia article (which more often than not offers conflicting sources) to try and make sense of it. It is what it is, and that is it. I didn't add it, I don't know who did. But arbitrary removals are not acceptable because one person has a hunch. Bzuk makes a sensible point, and rightly points out that this needs further investigation. Dapi89 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This amounts to an Exceptional Claim so please refresh your memory on that. 2ndly using a single source to upend an entire article on such an important topic amounts to giving it undue weight, especially when it is so obviously and transparently false. There is a reason that wikipedia is often sneered at, and inserting the above paragraph into this article is one of them. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL: Such grandiose statements do your position no good. Find some data to refute the original statement. Your supposition that the figure of 3,000 available pilots is wrong has to be backed up by a contrary reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

No, I don't. The statement is transparently false and is contradicted by multiple sources that have already been referenced. You have already shown how absurd it is, so why keep it for one second longer? The onus is on those who insert exceptional claims to prove them, not for editors like us to disprove them: Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[4] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included..Damwiki1 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be a simple misstatement over the issue at play. That is, there were Battles & Defiants (& pilots) available during the Battle. That either "became" something later is of no moment, when national survival was at issue. There were a total of about 3000 of both aircraft built, & it's that number (less than the pilots) which was my point when I first put that in. It has since, I believe, been rewritten. There's nothing extraordniary about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It might amaze some people to know that the RAF actually won the BofB and that the RAF also had other tasks to perform that were vital to victory. The Battle squadrons were light bombers and required for tactical purposes if an invasion took place, while the Defiant was used successfully as a night fighter and for second line duties, including training thousands of aerial gunners. Total production of Defiants was 1065 from 1939 to 1943, when production ended. Defiants equipped 13 NF squadrons. Total production of Battles was 2185, the last model being a target tug, produced in Sept 1940. Source, Monday, British Aircraft of WW2.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

♠"Defiants equipped 13 NF squadrons." AFAIK, the threat from night bombing in the Battle was negligible. Certainly, the Defiant was useless in daytime ops. Moreover, AFAIK, a catseye Defiant was ineffectual as a NF anyhow. A radar-equipped Blenheim, less so (if too slow).

♠"The Battle squadrons were light bombers and required for tactical purposes if an invasion took place" I daresay, if there was an invasion, other aircraft could have been spared. Blenheims, for instance.

♠"second line duties, including training thousands of aerial gunners." For the duration, yes. I suggest other options were available later. What was required was an immediate response to what appeared to be impending doom.

♠Total production figures suggest somewhat less than 3000 total in summer '40; correction is apt, if the number available at the time is available.

♠"It might amaze some people to know" Really? Have anyone in mind? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The RAF won the battle against a numerically superior foe. Therefore RAF dispositions, training aircraft allocation, etc, etc, must be considered correct although open to examination. You are arguing that the RAF should have cut its nose off to spite its face by crippling its future potential for pilot training, yet this seems like OR... The facts are that the RAF didn't need more fighters or more pilots than they had (although this might not have seemed so at the time), since if they really did they would have lost the battle and it was Me-109 pilot availability that fell faster than in Fighter Command - see the article section: Attrition statistics. The Fairey Battle was an important component of Bomber Command - this is a fact, and the statement that other aircraft might have filled the gap is interesting, but irrelevant, since they didn't and the RAF dispositions were proved correct because they won the battle. The Defiant was equipped with AI Mk IV or Mk VI radar and during the winter of 1940/41 was to record more kills per interception than any other contemporary fighter.(Monday p42) This is why it was kept in production as the Defiant MkII and outfitted with the Merlin XX engine(Monday p43). In any event the statement that 3000 pilots were allocated to Battles and Defiants is complete nonsense and should be removed ASAP, since no one is arguing that it is correct.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point, an editor did not make the contention, it was an attributed statement that you may or may not agree with but unless you have substantive data that contravenes the original statement, it stands until a new revision is produced that has corroborating facts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

I too have doubts about the "3,000 pilots" being tied up in Battle and Defiant squadrons; more than likely this means 3,000 aircrew of which Battles had three each and Defiants two. Trained Navigators (Battles) and gunners would have been more valuable to Bomber Command, and not many would have retrained as pilots, so the theory that 3,000 pilots could have been released to fly Hurricanes is, in itself, suspect - regardless of whether the Battles and Defiants were as useless as the paragraph makes out. Why not remove the reference to 3,000 pilots until this can be confirmed? Minorhistorian (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion I made a while back, that the original source be checked. For the time being, we can put either a {dubious} or {verify} tag or even put the contentious statement into an "invisible". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

I would agree with any of the above, although I think it should be removed and if an editor wants to put it back in, as a footnote, they can do so with a verbatim quote from the reference and text stating that it is not supported by other sources. This statement amounts to a complete rewriting of the whole history of the Battle of Britain and makes wikipedians look like idiots - I'm sorry if I offend anyone by saying this but it is true and if I tried to use this paragraph in a university level paper, I would get royally roasted by my prof. Wikipedia doesn't give equal weight to any source, especially when it runs completely contrary to accepted history, and this is not how wikipedia works.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"The RAF won the battle against a numerically superior foe. Therefore RAF dispositions, training aircraft allocation, etc, etc, must be considered correct although open to examination. " It's precisely the "examination" this point is about. Did RAFFC needlessly waste inexperienced pilots? Did RAF high command make mistakes in a/c allocations? I would have no problem with removing "3000 pilots", provided the ref to the a/c themselves remained, given the questionable utility of either in the Battle itself. Any defense of their utility beyond the Battle belongs on the individual a/c pages, IMO. Moreover, the issue of attrition of RAFFC pilots, against the potential conversion of Battle/Defiant pilots (however many they were), deserves a mention, since this goes to the deeper issue, namely, "Did FC make a mistake?" There's a lot about the mistakes the Germans made, but slim mention of those the Brits made. IMO, this is one. So are the bad dispositions of Spits, Hurrys, & Blenheims. This unbalances the account IMO, unfairly against the Germans. (That the Germans made more, & stupid, mistakes is beyond doubt.) How this is done is the question. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What 3000 aircraft? Defiant production was spanned over 4 years and the first production Defiant didn't fly until July 1939, and total production was 86 aircraft by June 1940 and 202 by Oct 1940 (all data from Profile Publications 117, the Boulton Paul Defiant). Defiant production was insignificant compared to Hurricane and Spitfire Production. The Fairey Battle suffered heavy losses prior to the BofB and hundreds were lost in France from all causes. Fairey Battle training aircraft was sent to Canada and the first arrived in August 1939 so even prior to the BofF the Battle was being phased into a new role as a training aircraft and target tug. 366 Battles were completed prior to Sept 02 1940 as dual control trainers or as target tugs. (all data from Monday). Isn't it more than a little strange that no other accounts of the BofB mention thousands of Defiants and Battles marking time with 3000 pilots. The whole paragraph that I deleted is complete bunk as should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the BofB. Examination of the battle and RAF dispositions is one thing but falsifying the wikipedia article on one of the most important battles in modern history is quite another and the article as it reads now is a complete and utter lie.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Succinctly, despite the "logic" of the proposition you have espoused, you are not an authority and a credible source that contradicts this statement must be obtained. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Again, you do not seem to understand that when exceptional claims are made that exceptional sources are required to substantiate it, and it not the task of other editors to refute it: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[4] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Damwiki1 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we are straying a little bit here, what is being disputed I believe is the number '3,000'. I looked back through the article history to see when this number was added. It was apparently added in March 2007 by by Trekphiler (see [1]). At that time the paragraph was supported by three different reference sources, only one of which is there now. We are lucky that Trekphiler is here now to confirm or clarify the entry and re add the cites that appear to have been removed since for unknown reasons. Restoring the missing reference citations should satisfy the exceptional claim requirements. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree what is being disputed here is a simple matter of fact. There is no need for heated arguments. We should all work together to establish what the facts are. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant paragraph:

• there has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles *in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin *engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be *retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane *pilots for Spitfires.[56]

We all agree that it is complete nonsense, yet a day later it still remains in an article about one of the most important battles of modern history. If I stated in an article about arithmetic that 2+2 = 3, it would be removed immediately even if I had a reference, because it would be an "exceptional claim", yet the above paragraph which is complete fiction is allowed to remain. This is an insult to the integrity of every wikipedian and to wikipedia itself.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's 'nonsense' (so we don't all agree) and I am also not 'insulted' as you put it. It might be incorrect but we don't know until the three original sources have been checked. If the sources support the paragraph then it stays, if not it goes or is amended. Might be worth dropping Trekphiler a line as he seems to have missed my earlier post and he should be able to tell us exactly what the sources say.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, provide a reference to substantiate the paragraph.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Three reference cites for this particular paragraph were added in this article history diff [2] that I posted earlier, only one remains in the current article. I have asked for these to be checked, it should be a simple matter as page numbers are given. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The current reference is not included in the original set of references. Again, the idea that the RAF had 3000 pilots attending to Fairey Battle and BP Defiant squadrons, while only 1100 pilots were assigned to RAFFC is too fantastic to be anything but a typo or a simple mistake and the paragraph should be removed ASAP.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Minorhistorian has now quarantined the disputed figure. Can we leave it like this while the facts are checked. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By appearences, there was a simple mistake made over exactly how many a/c & pilots were involved. (It may have been mine, sad to say.) As far as "no other account", I am aware both aircraft were (are) widely recognized as useless in the roles for which they were intended, & Allen, at least, has proposed they should have been removed from service & the pilots (however many it was) be retrained. From the error over the number, however, Damwiki1 seems to have become so exercised, any option but deletion of the whole idea is apparently anathema. Am I wrong to think the relative value, or lack of value, of both should be mentioned? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Danwiki on this; I find it hard to believe that Fighter Command had to call on the FAA for pilots when there were apparently 3,000 spare hanging around gathering dust and cobwebs in Defiant and Battle squadrons. Chances are the author has conflated "aircrew" into "pilots" and let his imagination take over...This comment was posted before Trek's BTW, but went missing for some reason...Minorhistorian (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There were reportedly 7000 more not assigned, if Winston's minute is correct. As for getting to "3000 pilots", I wouldn't rule out totalling the #built; all would have needed pilots...

The "missing comment" may have been a product of edit conflict. Apologies if I zapped it out by mistake. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are still serious problems with the existing paragraph: There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.[56] I haven't read a single account of the battle where it was suggested that the Battles and Defiants be scrapped. Again this is a pretty amazing suggestion that is simply not part of historical record, probably because it would have dealt a death blow to the RAF flight training program, not to mention the lack of said Spitfires and the fact that something like 90% of BP Defiants were yet to be built. Unless someone can dig up information suggesting that it was ever considered, then the whole paragraph should be struck.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We have dealt with this issue here and the above paragraph should be struck from the article. I have povided abundent data to show that most BP defiants were built after the BofB while the Fairey Battle was an integral part of Bomber Command and the entire aircrew training program.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The existing Defiant paragraph has been challenged above and was removed by Damwiki1 but reverted as no consensus by Bzuk. Dont really want to see an edit war on this can you all come to some sort of agreement, should the qouted paragraph be removed (or changed or kept). Please dont alter or delete the paragraph without this section coming to a conclusion I dont really want to protect the article, Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if Damwikil was replying to me, nobody has a problem with your challenge to the content but you cant just remove it if other editors dont agree. Looking for some sort of agreement or not for Damwikil request to remove the content from other editors please. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted my comment in response to undoing my edit. There was no challenge to my request dated Oct 06 to delete the paragraph in question, as such there appeared to be consensus. I also provided numerous high quality verbatim references to prove my point but nothing was posted in return to defend the existing wording. Also parts of this paragraph were supposed to be quarantined:

• There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in
• RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their *Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing *large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires. However in 1940 739 Battles were operating as trainers in Canada; in addition, Bomber Command was *still using Battles to attack invasion ports at night and three Battle squadrons had been transferred to *Coastal Command.

yet somehow reappeared in the article. It really is time to remove this patent nonsense.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

♠"the Harvard could have replaced the Battle as a training aircraft amounts to OR" Only if it actually goes on the page.

♠"that it would not have increased Britain's vulnerability to invasion due to a reduction in the numbers of tactical strike aircraft." I'd say the "increased vulnerability" was trivial, given the effectiveness of the Battle.

♠"I have never seen or heard of such a study." Have you read Allen's Who Won the Battle of Britain??

♠"366 Battles were completed prior to Sept 02 1940 as dual control trainers or as target tugs" "in 1940 739 Battles were operating as trainers in Canada" So which is it? And if it's 739, do you deny there were other crew training aircraft available? (It appears so.) Do you also deny their Merlins would have been better used in Spitfires?

♠"and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be *retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane *pilots for Spitfires" Do you dispute the turnover of Battle/Defiant pilots to Hurricanes, & Hurricane pilots to Spits, was possible? Beneficial to FC? Bear in mind, invasion would only be a genuine threat when & if air superiority was gained, so claiming Battles as vital on anti-invasion duty is a non-starter.

♠"something like 90% of BP Defiants were yet to be built" I don't see the relevance of this. Do you deny there were, in fact, Defiants in service? Or that their Merlins, & their pilots, could have been used elsewhere?

♠"it would have dealt a death blow to the RAF flight training program" Seeing FC was fighting for Britain's survival, & seeing the training program was already being pretty gutted, I fail to see how loss of these aircraft would be a "death blow", especially seeing they could readily be replaced by other procurement.

♠What I see here is somebody trying to deny there was even a possibility of improving effectiveness & the willful blindness to any option but the Battle or Defiant. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1) The Harvard could not and did not replace either the Battle or the Defiant as an advanced training aircraft. It did not have the performance nor was it outfitted with a Merlin engine to give pilots experience with this engine, which was used in the majority of RAF combat aircraft.

2) I am not interested in your opinions but in provable, historical fact. The historical records states that RAF retained the Battle as a tactical strike aircraft, and concurrently used it as an advanced training aircraft where it was an integral part of the RAF and Commonwealth training programs. We have gone all over this and more than adequete data has been presented to prove this.

3) Please provide some verbatim quotes but such contentions are not found in the vast majority of histories regarding the BofB.

4) Both, The last production Battles were completed as advanced training aircraft. The Battle was being used both as an advanced training aircraft and as an operational strike bomber, in the Summer of 1940. No there was not sufficient numbers of alternate aircraft available to replace the Battle since other Merlin engined training aircraft were in very short supply. Again we have gone all over this and disputing the Battle's place in the training program amounts to OR as does the allegation that Hurricane and Spitfire production was somehow limited by availability of Merlin engines. Spitfire I production problems had absolutely nothing to do with Merlin engine availability, and there's no source that states this.

5) again the idea that there was 3 thousand pilots allocated to operational Battle and Defiant squadrons is nonsense and not supported by the available data, and amounts to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources.

6) Defiants were in service (maybe 100 by Sept 1940) and they were used elsewhere after being withdrawn from daylight service, as NFs, and training aircraft and any other contention amounts to OR. Fighter command was never short of pilots, and each squadron had more pilots than planes, and the RAF always retained hundreds of SE fighters in reserve depots during the BofB.

7) The RAF won the battle!!! How many times do you have to read this before you understand that it was the RAF that was gearing up for a long war of attrition, where a massive training scheme was absolutely critical to final victory, and that the Luftwaffe died for lack of such long range planning? In any event there is no place in this article for alternate history.

8) Such contentions amount to alternate history and OR and have no place in this article.

There are abundant sources available regarding the BofB and the paragraph in question is not supported by these. The idea that somehow, scrapping Battles and Defiants would magically result in more Hurricanes and Spitfires is simple nonsense.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"I am not interested in your opinions but in provable, historical fact. The historical records states that RAF retained the Battle as a tactical strike aircraft, and concurrently used it as an advanced training aircraft where it was an integral part of the RAF and Commonwealth training programs." My opinion has nothing to do with it. Nor am I debating the Battle was used in this fashion, only the absolute need for it, as well as the potential use elsewhere.

"Please provide some verbatim quotes but such contentions are not found in the vast majority of histories regarding the BofB." Your presumption is I have it in front of me. I don't, or I would.

"Fighter [C]ommand was never short of pilots, and each squadron had more pilots than planes" That appears contradicted by the use of incompletely-trained pilots out of OTU, wouldn't you say? Nor does it argue against release of Defiant/Battle engines... As noted, survival first.

"The Harvard could not and did not replace either" So be it. Again, survival first. If FC falls, the availability of Merlin-powered trainers is of vanishing value.

"the idea that there was 3 thousand pilots allocated to operational Battle and Defiant squadrons is nonsense and not supported by the available data, and amounts to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources." Settled, wasn't it? The point isn't "3000", it's "however many were in Battles & Defiants". Do you suggest the number was zero? I repeat, do you dispute the turnover of Battle/Defiant pilots to Hurricanes, & Hurricane pilots to Spits, was possible? Beneficial to FC?

"The RAF won the battle!!! How many times do you have to read this before you understand that it was the RAF that was gearing up for a long war of attrition" I understand FC was at the moment of the battle stripping its training command of half-trained pilots because the immediate need was survival. I never suggested it did not, or would not, have a detrimental impact. What leads you to believe I did? Beyond your own attitude, I mean. Neither do I appreciate your implication I'm too stupid to grasp the issues at hand.

"Such contentions amount to alternate history and OR and have no place in this article." I repeat, the fact they have been raised by someone with inside knowledge, namely Allen, suggests the issue deserves to be addressed &, if necessary, refuted, not simply ignored. I take a view offering options is a matter of making clear the context. AH has nothing to do with it. Is it AH to say Yamamoto could have put his BBs in front in attacking Midway? No. What's AH is saying what would have happened if he had. (I'd say "could", but that's in reach of historical speculation, & some historiographers have done that, without reaching what I'd call AH.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Allen isn't referenced as a source for the paragraph in question but rather Ansell, and no verbatim quotes have been forthcoming to support the rather incredible contention of the paragraph. The article states that "Overall, by 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots" so there was no shortage of pilots, ever. There were, in fact, about two pilots available for each serviceable fighter. On July 07 RAFFC had 1259 pilots available for duty in 52 squadrons, including 2 Defiant (Yes only two!), 6 Blenheim, 19 Spitfire and 25 Hurricane squadrons, but only 644 serviceable aircraft (Terraine, Right of the Line, p174). When you look at the numbers the glaring absurdity of the paragraph become apparent. Look, I don't mind criticism of the RAF, nor do I mean to be insulting, but there is just no historical basis for the statement in the disputed paragraph. Damwiki1 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No historical or wiki member concensus to retain it, its been two months pull the disputed paragraph! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No historical or wiki member consensus to delete it, did I get that right?! I've already invoked WP:BRD, which is why we are here again... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

"no verbatim quotes have been forthcoming" Since it could take me six months to get a copy on interlibrary loan, & I don't feature you waiting that long, why don't you take the trouble to look yourself? More to the point, why don't you address the issue: it's not need of pilots (I'll accept OTU was keeping up), it's desirability (high-time over {comparatively} raw). Moreover, there was, & is, an issue of engine availability, & IIRC, Merlins were at the time in short supply for fighters. This isn't addressed by pilot numbers in any case. We've gone round & round on it without you actually dealing with this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Call for Consensus on change to article

Since there appears to be a difference of opinion on essentially a "content" issue, one of the first things to do is to try an seek consensus from the body of editors who have an interest in this article. Rather than canvassing, I have set up a question to elicit responses and ask for "a show of hands", bearing in mind that consensus is not reached by merely a numerical count but by the establishment of a position that ALL parties can accept and adhere to, as a definitive conclusion. FWiW, it does require acquiesence that there is no other solution.

Question: Remove the passage/section/paragraph following:

• • There has been some criticism of the decision to keep these aircraft (along with the Fairey Battles in RAF Bomber Command) operational instead of retiring and scrapping them, allowing their Merlin engines to be turned over to fighters and their pilots to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires. However in 1940, 739 Battles were operating as trainers in Canada; in addition, Bomber Command was still using Battles to attack invasion ports at night and three Battle squadrons had been transferred to Coastal Command.

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose

1. Oppose Weak oppose I believe the statements are supported adequately by authoritative references and even if it is a bit of revisionist speculation, I can live with its inclusion in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC).
2. Oppose for reasons stated above. IMO, it needs clarifying, if only to put to rest an error in Allen (presuming there is one). I doubt I'm the only person ever to encounter the claim. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
   

• Support

1. Support tentatively I believe all articles should be balanced and well sourced, this paragraph seems it but reads like speculation. In addition I have seen enough points raised on this talkpage that suggests this particular paragraph should be re-evaluated and perhaps reinserted reworded somewhat using sources that balance out the issue. I agree with the comment made during the discussion that this does seem to be a pretty exceptional claim and it doesn’t take more than a layman to note reality issues with what has been stated that makes the claim look a little suspect (granted yes it has been published from a secondary source, I presume is reliable). Summarising: I feel it needs balancing and more sourcing to retain in its current state.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak support Can anyone give the exact text that supports this claim? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. If we could find supporting sources with verbatim quotes, then I would have no problems with adding it as a footnote. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support One thing not mentioned is that the Fairey Battles used obsolescent Merlin Is: lacking the "universal" propeller shaft of the Merlin III these engines were only capable of taking one type of propeller, nor were they capable of the extra boost provided by the 100 octane fuel which was in universal use in Fighter Command - without considerable modifications, which presumably would have taken up time and resources which could have been put to better use elsewhere, they were simply not up to the job. Besides which there was no problem with the supply of Merlin engines, nor was the production of Hurricanes and Spitfires a problem - to wit, the idea that scrapping the Battles and freeing up Merlin Is for Hurricanes and Spitfires is, in itself, laughable. As for the speculation that their pilots could have been retrained - speculative - Bomber Command still needed pilots and aircrew to operate; the Battle aircrew could equally have been retrained for bomber ops. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1 Comment While researching and bringing the Rolls-Royce Merlin article up to FA standard I did not ever read that airframes were kept waiting for engines although the production effort was always 'flat out'. Fitting a used engine to a new airframe does not make sense at all, the managers would simply not have allowed it. The answer might be found in Winston Churchill's memoirs as he recorded everything, I have an incomplete set of six books, the crucial one covering this time period is missing unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not into new airframes AFAIK, but saving new production engines by moving engines into the reconditioning pipeline for service depots. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2 Comment We need to see the supporting reference. The paragraph merely states that there was some criticism of the decision. Despite the fact that this criticism was ill founded it still may have existed. If it was criticism after the end of the battle based on what seems to be a rather poor suggestion it is not really notable enough for inclusion. If it was criticism during the battle it is still not particularly notable or relevant unless it had some effect on events of the time.

I think it is up to those relying on the cited reference to quote from the reference to prove their point and justify inclusion of the paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should proceed and remove the paragraph under discussion.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will remove the paragraph in question, barring further comment.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Douglas Bader

The image of Douglas Bader was removed because, according to Snowmanradio " image does not have obvious fair use on this page, so removed": Bader is mentioned in the text as the instigator and pioneer of the "Big Wing" tactics - the image correlates directly with this - and he was, overall, one of F/C's most notable pilots of the time, regardless of the controversy he caused. The image itself is a small reproduction from an encyclopaedia and one which is already in the public arena. To remove it without discussion is a little OT. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hardest Day

Does anyone have any objections to me starting an article on the above to go alongside Adlertag and the Battle of Britain Day? Dapi89 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! I presume you have read the book with the same title: The Hardest Day: The Battle of Britain: 18 August 1940, by Alfred Price?Damwiki1 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've got enough you think you can make it worthwhile, do it! TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have the Price one. I think I can call in a significant amount of other sources as well. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

forgot to mention in edit summary

the inclusion of the fact tag was at the end of a quote that had no source after it. A direct quote as it is should be sourced. Cheers82.8.192.142 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Grape crush

"crush the RAF, which was essential for a successful invasion of Britain." Besides "crush" being a bit POV, calling it "essential" is seriously in question. For landings to succeed, it only needed local air superiority. Once forces were ashore, airpower's impact drastically shrank, as Allied experience against the Germans in Italy demonstrates. That being true, I took it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"stomp on the RAF" or "smash the RAF and pound them into tiny pieces before spitting them out" or even "drop on the RAF like a ton of bricks" would have been better and more descriptive clichés. Minorhistorian (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a suspicion they'd fail the POV test. ;p H.C.T.Dowding ^{off the reserve} 06:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Way too much

I'm sorry, I know a lot of hard work has gone into this article, but I wandered over to it to learn a little about the Battle of Britain and all I've found is a bunch of analysis and little story. It really reads like something written for World War II buffs and less for someone looking for a starting point (which is what an encyclopedia article ought to be). I'm not suggesting it be dumb-downed, but it could certainly be a lot more accessible. Paxsimius (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Football

On German TV, English football matches such as Chelsea vs. Manchester are often labeled "Battle of Britain". Is this just sports journalists' stupidity, or do Englishmen use this lable too? If so, it would be worth to mention somewhere in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.61.231 (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In England it's usually only England vs Germany national teams in the World Cup or European Cup that cause some tabloid newspapers to make World War II metaphors, but it's generally considered pretty crass when they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.237.12 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-articles

The Hardest Day, Adlertag and the BoB Day have been covered now but I think there is still some mileage in producing articles that deal with specific days of combat. The Greatest Day I think should be in, but also it might be a good idea to write one on the Channel battles. The Germans and British treated it as a phase of the battle, so I wonder whether a separate article could be produced on that; The Kanal Kampf (it was a German operation); Air battles over the Channel etc etc. Dapi89 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion over dates?

Towards the end of the section entitled 'Raids on British Cities', it says that 'October (1940) is regarded as the month regular bombing of Britain ended'. This looks incorrect to me, as The Blitz continued until May 1941, not just until October 1940.B1carbman (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign names?

Is it worth mentioning erroneous foreign names for the battle? In Polish it's called "Bitwa o Anglię", "the battle for England". Does anyone know any other similar misunderstandings in foreign languages? Malick78 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Clarrify Berlin Bombing

The followinig is unclear

The focus on attacking airfields had also been accompanied by a sustained bombing campaign which begun on 24 August with the largest raid so far, killing 100 in Portsmouth, and that evening the first night raid on London as described above.

Does "as described above" refer to the accidental minor raids on the edges of London, or some major raid that was not properly described? If the former, then this is interesting, as the Berlin raids essentially came before the London raids, and that should be stated explicitly. It would have been a clever British tactic to draw the enemy to London and away from the airfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.90.2 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference consolidation?

The reference list is quite long, a big part of it consisting of references to several pages of the same works. I would like to consolidate each work’s references with the Template:Rp.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

I disagree it is unnecessary. In my computer, the references section is four screens long; it becomes quite annoying. The Rp template was created for just such a situation — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at it, it substitutes a ? format for the Harvard citation with no appreciable gain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

What would be a ‘? format’? Anyway, if you do not appreciate a grokkable reference section, for other people it still is an appreciable gain. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no apparent advantage; can you point out where this format is used to consolidate references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough. For example, Battle_of_Osan#Citations and Delaware_Basin#References. Compare, specially, with how they were before: [3] and [4]. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate, I see no advantage, and only see a malformed template that does not conform to any known bibliographical notation or style guide. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Wikis are a new medium, so conformity is not a value in itself. But why would Rp be a malformed template? — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I also see no advantage to the new format. Seeing the work and page number in one click is more convenient than having a reference number with the page, which then links to the cited work. It also interrupts the main text less. (Hohum ^@) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your points, but I think they are more than offset by having a clean references section. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, generally, please don't set specific pixel sizes for images. Use default thumbs, "upright", or "upright=", so that preference sizing works. If your resolution or screen size is so low that pictures are to big *for you*, change it in your own preferences. (Hohum ^@) 07:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note taken, thank you. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos

One of the photos is described as being of an RAF pilot's grave but, if you look closely, the rank on the headstone is that of an Aircraftsman which was not a pilots rank - an Aircraftsman would have been a mechanic or a gun technician, or whatever but NOT a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.148.229 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the image LAC James Veitch Patten died in a road accident.[5] MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo of Hermann Göring is pre 1933 (e.g. no Hindenberg Cross on his ribbon bar - awarded 1934 and no gold party badge) and shows him in a Nazi Party uniform. Would a more contempry one dressed as a Field/Reich Marshall be more approriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helensq (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

British victory

The infobox clearly describes the result of the BoB as a 'decisive British victory', giving many sources to support that fact. That is the terminology we should use throughout the article. Personal views of editors are not relevant

I have seen opinion (not just mine BTW) it wasn't so clear, but you're right, the majority view is "British victory". I will leave it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

This section seems rather muddled and contains many extraneous facts. Could we tidy it up a but so that it discusses the aftermath of the BOB rather than, say fighter losses. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call about removing the discussion of the battle of Crete, the only source was a primary source, a dispatch written during the defence of Crete with no reference to the Battle of Britain. As such it misrepresented the outcome of the (as yet incomplete) invasion of Crete, and of course relating that to discussion of the Navy's role in defending Britain was pure synthesis.. . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, The Grand Alliance, Volume 3 By Winston Churchill now cited to compare the two, but it should still be made clear that the troop carriers were dispersed rather than "totally defeated", and the island was lost by the British albeit at a heavy cost to elite German forces. Which Churchill clearly states. . dave souza, talk 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph, under discussion, is examining the claim that the RN could have defeated a German seaborne invasion of the UK in Sept 1940. The ultimate fate of Crete is not relevant to the BofB article and a potential German invasion since German airborne forces were insignificant compared to the British and Commonwealth forces defending Britain and even if the RAF aircraft lost air superiority over Southern England, enough would survive to still contest transport aircraft and provide some support for the RN operating in the channel. Only a seaborne invasion could conquer Britain and the ability of the RN to totally defeat the attempted seaborne invasion of Crete despite overwhelming and undisputed Luftwaffe airpower is a clear example of what the RN could achieve. A convoy which has been intercepted by superior naval forces, partially destroyed, dispersed and prevented from landing a single soldier has been "totally defeated". The RAF victory during the BofB "prevented" a German invasion, but did not "defeat" a landing attempt. I am sure you see the distinction between prevention and defeat.Damwiki1 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The reader should not be given the impression that the RN saved Crete, the convoy was defeated but the German invasion by air succeeded. The whole "what if" question is unrealistic in the context of Britain, where as you state the Germans never did achieve the overwhelming and undisputed Luftwaffe airpower that they had in Crete, so it gives only limited support to Gordon's argument. Churchill's view that the RN would have had similar success in September 1940 does not preclude the likelihood that airpower could have won a war of attrition over the longer term: the RN losing six ships per three days would have made their sea superiority short lived. . dave souza, talk 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The reader isn't being given the impression that the RN "saved" Crete since the linked article on Crete makes that very clear, but neither should the reader be given the impression that the RN deterred a naval invasion of Crete, when in fact they engaged the convoys and forced the surviving ships to flee at gunpoint, without landing a single soldier. The war of attrition would only occur if the Germans made repeated, large scale invasion attempts, something they could not do due to lack of shipping and suitable, clear, calm, weather as Autumn approached .Damwiki1 (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Readers shouldn't have to follow a link to properly understand misleading text. If the linked article is correct, the RN suffered heavy losses and delays which made them unable to prevent a subsequent Italian naval invasion, at a time when the German airborne invasion had already succeeded to the point that the British forces were on the brink of retreat. The Germans never made any serious attempt at invading Britain, an overwhelming air victory in the Battle of Britain could have given them time to destroy RN fleets at their leisure but they did not have that option or even consistent interest. The lesson is surely that in 1940s terms both naval and air superiority was needed before any seaborne invasion, as at D-Day, and paras could only succeed in Crete at a heavy cost which the Allies failed to recognise when planning Operation Market Garden. . dave souza, talk 09:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The current wording states: "In late May 1941 during the successful German airborne assault which seized Crete, the Royal Navy was able to prevent attempted German seaborne landings on the coast of Crete, but they lost six ships in three days due to undisputed Luftwaffe air supremacy and the British were forced to evacuate the island." The sentence mentions the German victory within the first 12 words: "successful", "seized", the last part: "the British were forced to evacuate the island." is superfluous. The decision to evacuate Crete was made well before the Italian landings, and at that point the RN's primary task was to evacuate the island. The RN never attempted to stop the Italian landings, although they had the forces to do it since by the afternoon of 28 May they were engaged in transporting Commonwealth troops off the Island.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What has all this got to do with the BoB? The point about the result of the BoB is that it clearly made an invasion impossible. Whether an invasion could have succeeded if the result had been different is not that relevant.

Had the Germans achieved complete air superiority over the south of England then Britain would have remained under the threat of invasion and could have been subject to constant attacks from the air. The desire to fight on would have weakened and there could easily have been some form of political settlement. Even a non-aggression agreement would have totally changed the course of the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a sort of revisionism going on, with RN supporters trying to put over the viewpoint that the navy should get more credit, to the extent of almost implying that the RAF victory didn't really matter. As our Seelöwe article notes, the Germans recognised as preconditions for an invasion "Elimination of the Royal Air Force" as well as "Elimination or sealing off of Royal Navy forces" etc. If either the RAF or RN remained intact, the invasion was a non-starter. The RAF success in keeping air superiority prevented invasion, as did the RN supremacy in the seas. Perhaps more significantly, there was genuine and widespread fear at the time that Douhet was correct and arial domination alone would suffice, without an invasion. The RAF played a major part in preventing such German domination and proving that concept wrong. Taking Churchill out of context to support these RN "what if" stories is verging on syn. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is some unjustified revisionism going on here but I was not aware that it was some sort of RAF vs RN fight. As you rightly say, "Elimination or sealing off of Royal Navy forces" would have been required for a successful invasion and, as it turns out, the British ground defences would have been very effective too. However, none if this was put to the test and it was the RAF that actually withstood the brunt of the German attack.

The point about the BoB was that it removed the prospect and fear of invasion which could easily have resulted in a change of government and German appeasement. Even if Britain had remained neutral for the rest of the war, like Sweden for example, the outcome of the European war would have been completely different. The only uncertainty would have been concerning how Europe would been split between Nazi and Communist control. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How is Churchill being taken out of context? He makes it very clear that he thought the RN could defeat any German invasion attempt, as did German Navy, who would have had to actually carry out the operation. Noting that the RN could defeat an invasion is hardly revisionism, and until people began tinker with the wording and expand non-relevant sections, the brief discussion of the RN was appropriate, IMHO.Damwiki1 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to explain the relevance to the BoB. Are you claiming that the RN could have guaranteed to have prevented an invasion and are there any sources which say this? Even if that were the case, if Hitler was two steps away from invasion before the BoB he would only have been one step away if he had defeated the RAF. That would have had an enormous psychological impact. Britain may well have settled for some form of appeasement in that case. There were those on both sides who would have supported an agreement between the UK and Germany. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Churchill says that the RN would have defeated an invasion and draws a direct parallel between Crete and Sea Lion, and this has been referenced in the article, while Gordon states the same, and he is also referenced in the article, while the Sea Lion article expands on this, and is well referenced. As I have pointed out, the Germans did not have an unlimited window in which they could launch an invasion. Tide, moon and weather conditions limited a potential invasion to Sept/Oct 1940, and then only for several days in that period. If an invasion attempt was defeated, the winter weather would have given the RAF a chance to recover, even if they had lost a war of attrition to the Luftwaffe in the Summer of 1940. But again, we don't need to expand on this topic beyond what was there a week ago, which basically notes that a Luftwaffe victory did not guarantee success given the strength of the Royal Navy.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Churchill Says: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." By "well referenced" you mean a Torygraph article, so if we include that we should also include The Fighter Boys achieved a great military success - Telegraph including "Dr Gordon asserts that the Navy had little to fear from the Luftwaffe even if it had total air superiority...... This scenario is contradicted by the events of May 1941. During the Crete disaster, the Navy suffered a devastating tactical defeat at the hands of the German air force. Three cruisers and six destroyers were sunk and 17 damaged in a few days." and It's baloney, say RAF aces - Telegraph. . or we can leave out this spat between naval and air historians. I think we're all agreed that the RAF victory did guarantee that the Germans wouldn't attempt a seaborne invasion, whether or not they considered it seriously in the first place. . . dave souza, talk 22:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you haven't read this part of the article on Sea Lion:Operation SeaLion Chances of success. The German Navy study is referenced as is the opinion of other authors. This doesn't take away the achievements of the RAF in soundly beating the Luftwaffe during the BofB, but it is a fact that the RN was considered capable of stopping an invasion, even in the face of Luftwaffe air superiority. The Navy suffered losses during Crete but not a tactical defeat, as they defeated two invasion attempts and then successfully evacuated the island, all in the face of undisputed Luftwaffe air superiority. We might say that the RN scored a Pyrrhic Victory at Crete. Churchill stated that the Navy did all that it was asked to. The fact that the then world's largest navy suffered losses, is not disputed but the RN had ~60 cruisers and ~200 destroyers in May 1941.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing against briefly saying that Luftwaffe victory would not have guaranteed success given the strength of the Royal Navy. That is perfectly true but we should keep it brief because it is only marginally relevant to the importance of the BoB in the war. Luftwaffe failure guaranteed the failure of an invasion. That kept Churchill in power and Britain in the war and against the Nazis. Doubt, worry, and fear could have changed the outcome completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Royal Navy battle.

I have started to remove excessive personal editorialising about the RN.

I do not think anyone disputes the vital role the RN played in defending Britain in WWII but an article on the BoB is not the place to discuss this. The aftermath of the BoB was that Germany failed to achieve air superiority and thus, with the air, sea, and land defences all still in place, an invasion was impossible. The BoB was an air battle which Britain won, there was no naval battle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin I don`t agree with you deleting that section about the RN. The Battle Of Britain was primarily an air battle but I`m sick to the back teeth of people repeating the mantra that it was the RAF which saved this country from invasion. The pilots were undoubtedly brave (though Bomber Command`s pilots were statistically in more danger of death, particularly in 1940) and helped ensure that the invasion was never even attempted [though many informed observers don`t think it was ever seriously contemplated by the Germans anyway] but the accepted position of those with an in depth knowledge is that the RN (and the English Channel) were the real reasons that Sea Lion never took place. I don`t think you can divorce the battle from the events surrounding it [i.e. that it was about stopping the German invasion] and if that section helps educate some of those who perpetuate the myth, that the Germans were all set to invade till the RAF stopped them, then that can only be a good thing. I`d replace it but I can`t be bothered to get into a reversion battle, so hopefully someone else will do it ! --JustinSmith (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue IMO isn't "Did RN play a role?" or "Might RN have played a role if Luftwaffe succeeded?" but "Did Luftwaffe achieve its objectives?" The answer, clearly, is "no". Thus, it makes not a whit of difference what RN might or might not have done. (Moreover, as I understand it, Luftwaffe had no capability to defeat RN heavies in any case....) Comparison to Crete, while interesting, is of no moment, since the air superiority achieved there was not achieved over the Channel. (I might also note, despite total superiority over Crete, the Germans could neither successfully land nor prevent evacutaion...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Justin, this article is about the Battle of Britain not Operation Sea Lion to which your comments might be relevant. As I say above, nobody disputes the role the RN played in defending Britain, before, during, and after the BoB but it did not significantly participate in the battle itself.

I do not see how the article propagates the 'mantra that it was the RAF which saved this country from invasion'. On the other hand the BoB was a major turning point in the war because it removed the threat of invasion. Had the battle been lost it is quite likely that Britain would have done some kind of deal with Germany, which would have completely changed the course of the war, possibly by even more than an invasion would have. Looking back it is easy to say that an invasion would have been defeated by the RN or even the ground defences but at the time this was no so clear. German victory in the BoB would have strengthened the reputation of the Wehrmacht for being invincible and forced British appeasement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The RN certainly did play major part in the BofB. RN coastal forces fought near nightly battles against their German counterparts. The RN escorted convoys through and/or near the channel and RN AA gunners engaged the Luftwaffe regularly. RN FAA pilots were loaned to RAF FC and RN FAA strike aircraft made constant day and night air raids, mainly against German fuel dumps, airfields and invasion ports. The RAF certainly carried the brunt of the air battles, but this was not the only aspect of the BofB.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While it is true the RN did play a role during the battle much of the aftermath section on the RN's ability - or inability - to turn back a German invasion is hypothetical, based on a completely different set of circumstances which took place several months later: as such it does not really belong in an encyclopaedic article anyway. Like it or not the B of B was mostly an aerial assault on British targets and the RAF's role in defeating it; to expand it to incorporate all of the naval aspects mentioned by Danwiki would only add to an already unwieldy article which, unfortunately, has long been plagued with editor's pet peeves. Once the floodgates are opened, the sky's the limit - why not describe Coastal Command's work during the B of B - or AA Command, with some mention of the valuable work of the Barrage Balloons and the role of what became the Home Guard? There have to be some limits to what should or should not be included. Surely the RN's role has already been covered in the Sealion article? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is not to, in any way, diminish the role played in the defence of the UK by many other services, it is just that their detailed contributions do not belong in an an article about an air battle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree, the "Aftermath" section is overloaded with attempts to claim the glory for the Navy. All that's needed is a brief paragraph, in the context of other aspects of that section. Any valid arguments that the RN didn't need air superiority to defeat Seelöwe belong in that article, not here. Regarding RN protection of channel convoys, the Kanalkampf section doesn't look adequately sourced. Deighton makes the point that the coal convoys were unnecessary as the coal could and did eventually go by railway, and it was a wasteful misuse of RAF resources trying to defend the convoys. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The two paragraphs of hypothetical arguments over the possible role of the RN in the event of the RAF losing the battle have been ring-fenced: they symbolise the struggle to get this article up to more than a B. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Have added some info on the Kanalkampf period, perhaps haven't emphasised enough that the RN and Air Command were demanding protection that Dowding didn't have available, over his objections and his attempts to husband resources for the coming air attacks. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple references for single statement

The use of 12 references for "Decisive British Victory" is an absolute nonsense: yes there has been contention, but mainly by people who have left or been booted off Wikipedia. The perceived need to need to bolster this statement with 12 references can equally be claimed by naysayers to be overkill, and it simply looks ridiculous: Read Wikipedia:Citation overkill: "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.

Citation overkill clutters pages, making them unreadable. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read: unreadable articles do not give our readers any material worth verifying. It is also important for an article to be verifiable: Without citations, how do we know that the material isn't just made up? A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter."

BTW, one source "Addison Crang The Burning Blue" is a waste of time with no date or page number, showing that people have simply thrown references at the perceived problem. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with that, needs some common sense applying. Out of interest I looked at the German article as if there is any contention it would be there. Uncited in the infobox is AUSGANG Abbruch von deutscher Seite (Outcome - failure of the German side), FOLGEN Deutsche Invasion verhindert, Briten behalten Luftherrschaft (Effects - German invasion delayed, Britain retained air superiority). The German wiki editors don't seem to have a problem with it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree. Multiple references are usually the result of past edit wars and are put there as a sort of guard against change. WP policy is generally that there is nothing you can or should do to prevent future editing.

Could we all agree perhaps on what is the most authoritative source and have that, along with maybe one other and perhaps and online source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would actually prefer it with fewer footnotes. The consolidated version looks reasonable. My issue with the original edit was that removing the additional references was effectively against the consensus developed over the last few/several years on something where there has been significant discussion. Thus, a new consensus should be reached prior to making such a change.

Linked for reference: A brief perusal of the archive index shows at least the following discussions: Decisive British Victory?, Degree of victory?, Decisive Victory, Decisive Victory to RAF or not ... The endless argument continues.

As it is now, the consolidated reference change retains the references, but makes the "Decisive British victory" text more readable in an area that is highly visible.

As I understand it, having multiple footnotes was due to the repeated contention to the wording used, or even if it was a victory. Including the quoted text in the footnotes was to underscore the position rather than just have the references. People who were actually involved in the discussions should state how they feel about just the references vs. the quotes which were in the footnotes.

There was quite a bit of quoted text removed which, when this issue comes up again (which it will), it would be helpful to have the available in the archived discussion. Also, Martin Hogbin suggested above that we select the most authoritative. Thus, I am including the all the footnotes here (the first is currently retained in the article):

Quoting Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe: Terraine states the outcome as "decisive", Kreipe describes it as a strategic failure and turning point in the Second World War. Kreipe also states the "German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses that could never be made good throughout the course of the war". Quoting Dr Klee "The invasion and subjugation of Britain was made to depend on that battle, and its outcome therefore materially influenced the further course and fate of the war as a whole".Terraine 1985, p. 219.

"Fighter Command's victory was decisive. Not only had it survived, it ended the battle stronger than it had ever been. On 6 July its operational strength stood at 1,259 pilots. On 2 November, the figure was 1,796, an increase of over 40%. It had also seriously mauled its assailant. In a lecture held in Berlin on 2 February 1944, the intelligence officer of KG 2, Hauptmann Otto Bechle, showed that from August to December 1940 German fighter strength declined by 30% and bomber strength by 25%." Bungay p. 368

"The Battle was one of the great turning points in the Second World War—a defensive victory which saved the Island base and so, once Russia and the United States became involved, made future offensive victories possible." Hough and Richards 2007, p. xv.

Quotes AJP Taylor: "a true air war, even if on a small scale and had decisive strategic results". The Burning Blue, Overy 2001, Addison & Crang, p. 267

"As it was, the pragmatism of Dowding and his Fighter Command staff, the self-sacrifice of their pilots and the innovation of radar inflicted on Nazi Germany its first defeat. The legacy of that defeat would be long delayed in its effects; but the survival of an independent Britain which it assured was the event that most certainly determined the downfall of Hitler's Germany." Keegan 1997, p. 81.

"Given the ambiguous results of subsequent air campaigns against Germany, Japan, North Korea, and North Vietnam, it is probably fair to say that the Battle of Britain was the single most decisive air campaign in history." Buell 2002, p. 83.

"A decisive battle has been defined as one in which a 'contrary event would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent stages'. By this reckoning, the Battle of Britain was certainly decisive." AJP Taylor 1974, p. 67.

Bungay quoting Drew Middleton in The Sky Suspended: In 1945 the Soviets asked Gerd von Rundstedt which battle of the war he considered to be most decisive. Expecting him to say "Stalingrad", he said "The Battle of Britain". The Soviets left immediately." Bungay 2000, p. 386.

Makyen (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For me the problem with having multiple footnotes is that it is not only untidy and confusing, but it means that the nay-sayers and sceptics dictate how the article evolves: looking back at the "discussions" around the issue of who "won" the B of B, most of the scepticism centred around a small core of editors, most of whom are no longer active - whatever "consensus" was reached, it was forced on the majority by a very small faction; as such I make no apologies for making a unilateral decision to moderate the otherwise unreadable clutter which had developed. The reason I stuck with Terraine quoting Kreipe is that a Luftwaffe General calling the B of B a "strategic failure" for the Luftwaffe should be considered definitive for most purposes. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be a solution: simply put all the sources in single footnote. No?

That said, I'd agree with Minor. Quoting Kreipe would do it for me, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Noether of the two sources say that 1st RCAF was in effect a soverign unit, this looks like Or and Syn. I will mmark as CN untill a source can be found that says it wsa in effect a soversign unit.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Terraine, John (1985) A Time for Courage: The Royal Air Force in the European War, 1939-1945. New York: MacMillan. p 193: 'No. 1 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force, appeared in the Order of Battle at the end of August.' Wally Wiglet (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dowding in his despatch listed No1 RCAF as an RCAF squadron and distinguished it from 242 squadron which was a RAF squadron with mainly Canadian pilots, enlisted directly into the RAF: "163. A squadron of Canadian pilots of the Royal Air Force (No. 242) had been in existence for some months, and was one of the squadrons which went to France in June to cover the evacuation from the West Coast. Upon its return it became one of the foremost fighting Squadrons in the Command, under the leadership of the very gallant Squadron Leader (now Wing Commander) D. R. S. Bader, D.S.O., D.F.C., No. 1 (Canadian) Squadron, now also came into the line and acquitted itself with great distinction." The official RAF history (Richards) states: "...One of those was No. 1 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which reached this country on 20th June;..."" [6] However, the fact that the RCAF and ,indeed, any Canadian military unit was a sovereign entity seems self evident, as Canada was an independent Dominion whose military took orders from Ottawa, and only served under UK command by prior agreement.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why are we not using thise sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The new source does not say they were an autonamous unit, this is still OR and Syn. Find a source that says they were an independant commancomamnd. Also I nore that it was commanded by an RAF (not a Canadian) thus implying it was not consoderd a soverign unit.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a couple of relevant references were deleted as constituting unnecessary detail:

Richards, p. 156: 'One of those was No. 1 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which reached this country on 20th June; the other four—Nos. 302, 303, 310 and 312—were flown by the heroic remnants of the air forces of Poland and Czechoslovakia.' Notice the distinction between No. 1 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the RAF squadrons manned by the Poles.

Terraine, p. 193: 'No. 1 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force, appeared in the Order of Battle at the end of August.'

A couple of other points:

No. 401 Squadron RCAF (as No. 1 Squadron was redesignated in 1941, and, again, this was deleted as being unnecessary detail) was awarded the battle honour Battle of Britain. This would not have occurred if it had not taken part in the battle.

The nationality of one individual commander is irrelevant. The fact that Keith Park was a New Zealander does not mean that 11 Group was part of the NZAF.

In short, like 6 Group, No. 1 Squadron RCAF was under the operational control of the RAF, but was not part of it. Wally Wiglet (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Keith park was an RAF officer, Douglas Barder was not a RCAF officer, so yes it is relevant. Also I would add that the FAR turned over many sqaudrins to national control, they did not removes them from the Battle of Brtain roster. Synthasis is saying Source A say X source Y says be so fact C is ture, this is what you are doing. Find a source that says that 1st (canadian) (as one of your soources pouts it, implying it was not regarded as a soverign command) was a soverighn unit. It is clerar that 1st RCAF operated as a constiuant part of the RAF, with the RAF exercising command controil, up to an including the apointment of commanders, that is not a soversign unit. I can find referances all pertaining to its formation and dispatch, but not its independance (many seem to say htat in 1941 there was a confliuct over control of RCAF sqaudrons with canada wanting its own seperate commands).Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. Douglas Bader [sic] commanded No. 242 Squadron, which was indeed an RAF squadron, albeit with Canadian personnel. Furthermore, to conclude from the statement 'No. 1 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force, appeared in the Order of Battle at the end of August' that No. 1 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force, appeared in the Order of Battle is not synthesis, but is about as obvious conclusion as it is possible to reach. To suggest that it implies that the squadron ceased to be a unit of the RCAF and became an RAF squadron (incidentally duplicating the number of an existing RAF squadron) is beyond synthesis: it is irrational. Wally Wiglet (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So wjy was he mentioned, that is what synthasis is, its when you take two statements and combine them to produce a source. If it was an indpependant canadain unit then why not just produce a source thats state this obvious fact? Oh by the way iot was re-numberd to 401 in 1941 to avuid this confusion, if it ws not regarded as part of the RAF command why dod ot need to be renumberd if there ws no cinfusion? Also I note that it was the RAF who decalred the sqaudron operation, not its commander or the RCAF.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you refresh your understanding of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Canada was a sovereign independent country whose armed forces took their orders from the Canadian Government, and to suggest otherwise is as ludicrous as to suggest that USA forces serving under UK operational control were no longer sovereign units but somehow became part of the UK armed forces. Here's some more background on the RCAF in Britain:

"Another R.C.A.F. officer, S/L F. M. Gobeil, for some weeks after the outbreak of war, commanded 242 Squadron. In October 1939 this unit was named the 242 (Canadian) Squadron and under the leadership of the legless Englishman, S/L Douglas Bader, D.S.O., D.F.C., did amazingly good work in the early months of the war. 242 was made up of a few of the numerous Canadians who, spurred on by their desire to fly and unable to find a place in the small peacetime air ‘force of their own country, were accepted for service by the R.A.F. before the outbreak of war. Thus, while for a time 242 Squadron may have been All- Canadian and its designation as a Canadian squadron was a graceful tribute by the R.A.F. to its personnel from the Dominion, it was not an R.C.A.F. unit nor were its personnel members of the Royal Canadian Air Force... ...It was logical that the first Canadian squadron to go overseas as a unit should be an army co-operation squadron designed to work in close contact with the Canadian Army. Many wondered at the time why a fighter unit had not been selected, since it was in the fighter squadrons of the last war that Canadians so distinguished themselves and men like Barker, Bishop and Collishaw achieved lasting fame. 110, as a representative of the auxiliary, or “Saturday afternoon” squadrons, went overseas filled with anticipation of early action and imbued with enthusiasm at the prospects of a good scrap. But this was not to be and for many weary months they continued training on their sturdy Lysanders, while their more fortunate fellow Canadians serving in R.A.F. units saw considerable action with the Advanced Air Striking Force in France. One of the original officers of 110 Squadron who went through month after month of the depressing monotony of training, while later arrivals in England were going into action, has this to say of the weary grind: Army co-operation training required a thorough knowledge of army organization-one of the duller subjects even to army personneland training in army tactics, at a time when we knew them to be obsolete in the light of newer methods employed by the enemy. This monotonous routine took place when the Battle of Britain was at its height; when the enemy was being fought and bested by our friends in fighters. To add insult to injury we saw R.A.F. army cooperation pilots transferred to fighter squadrons and join the battle in the air, while we continued our fight by locating and reporting six figure pinpoints of a hay-rick or a cross-roads; or sat in class rooms memorizing the number of three-ton lorries in an army engineer company. Our life was not the happiest and the only thing that kept us going was the hope that some kind soul might recognize our “sterling qualities”, take pity on us, and in some way get us into the fight. Four months after the landing of 110 Squadron two other units arrived. They were 11 2 Auxiliary (Army Cooperation) Squadron, of Winnipeg, and No. I Fighter) Squadron, a Permanent Force unit which also included auxiliary personnel from 115 (Fighter) Squadron of Montreal. No. I Fighter was under the command of Squadron Leader E. A. McNab, while the commanding officer of I12 Squadron was Squadron Leader W. F. Hanna. The arrival of these two squadrons practically coincided with the fall of the Low Countries and France, as the advance party arrived on May 29th and the main party on June 21st.( [7] )" Note the distiction of RAF 242 Squadron and RCAF squadrons and units and the fact that No.1 RCAF squadron was a permanent force unit of the RCAF. No.1 RCAF squadron was renamed 401 squadron by agreement between the RCAF and RAF to avoid confusion between RCAF and RAF units.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To say it was "on the strength of the RAF on 1 August" is meaningless and implies that 1 Sqn RCAF was an RAF squadron; a better link is here - it does not say in black and white that the unit was a soverign Canadian one, but it is pretty obvious that a unit formed in Canada in 1937 and sent overseas three years later was Canadian, not part of the EATS contingent of squadrons that were an integral part of the RAF. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Command was at all times in the hands of the RAF. The Canadians did not get a cable every day from Ottawa telling theme to fly sorties at 1pm on what specific mission. Instead every day the RAF told them exactly what to do and when to do it. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a bit of common sense is required here. The BoB was clearly a battle between the UK and Germany only. Listing any other country as a belligerent is crazy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The total US Army contribution to the Dieppe Raid was 50 US Rangers, who were completely under UK operational command, yet the USA is included in the belligerent nations for that operation. To state that Canadian Forces were not sovereign units of an independent nation, because they were, by agreement, under UK operational command is not only offence to Canadians in general, it is also historically incorrect. If a source can be found that states that Canada was not a sovereign nation or that Canadian Forces were not ultimately commanded from Ottawa during WW2, by the Canadian War cabinet, then please provide said source.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

the burden of proof goes the other way. we know the RAF gave the day-to-day orders. Is there proof of any Canadian orders sent in from Ottawa that dealt with the Battle of Britain itself? Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is, quite frankly, an insane discussion. Canada was a sovereign nation in 1940 and it stationed regular airforce units of the RCAF in the UK to engage the Luftwaffe and I presented solid references to this effect. If someone wants to deny this, the burden of proof is upon them just as it would be upon them to prove that the US Rangers at Dieppe were not sovereign units of the US Army.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a permanent problem with WP. People want to add true information in a misleading way. There is no doubt that other countries contributed personal and material to the BoB and that these contributions were important but it gives them undue weight to name each contributing country as a belligerent. As Rjensen says we would need proof that the Canadians had a fully independent operational unit, fighting for Canadian objectives, to add Canada as a belligerent in the Bob. It is actually quite obvious that this could not possibly have been the case.

The involvement of Canada, along with other nations, is of course worthy of mention in the article but to list Canada as a belligerent is undue weight. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Read what the Canadians themselves say about their history in WW2 "Although Canada had gained control of it's own foreign policy...it was unreservedly committed to backing up the guarantee to Poland and Empire. As tensions in Europe rose in 1938 and 1939 Canada also prepared for war and when it came in September, the call went out to the British Empire and Canada answered." ie: in 1940 Canada's objectives were to fully support Britain with whatever means possible, because Canada was still very much a part of the Empire. The Canadians provided one of its own squadrons manned by Canadians, meaning, as in the Dieppe Raid that contribution should be recognised, how ever small it might seem. Writing about historical events doesn't mean rewriting events to suit modern interpretations. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I take your point that Canada made a national commitment to supporting the UK but I still wonder whether it is not undue weight to include the country in the infobox. The Dieppe Raid show the potential problem, should we now include the Polish forces in the west? They probably played a greater part in the BoB (even though they supplied no aircraft) and they probably acted more autonomously than the Canadians. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Polish and Czech and other emigre squadrons were analogous to RAF 242 Squadron, in that the flying personnel were mainly foreign born, but these squadrons were wholly incorporated into the RAF and, technically, all personnel were enlisted in, and paid by the RAF; this fact also shielded them from German reprisals should they be captured. No.1 Squadron RCAF was a unit formed in Canada, by personnel enlisted directly into the RCAF, and they received their pay from Ottawa, and served under UK operational control by direct agreement between Ottawa and London, just as the US Rangers at Dieppe served under UK control by agreement between Washington and London. However, there were also many other Canadian and Commonwealth airforce personnel serving in the UK who enlisted in their respective nation's airforces and then went on to serve within nominally RAF units, by prior agreement between their countries and the UK, and it became common for RAF, RCAF, and other Commonwealth squadrons to be composed of personnel who had, respectively, directly entered their nation's airforceDamwiki1 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So the question is whether the distinction between the Canadian and say Polish contributions to the BoB is sufficient to describe the country of Canada as a belligerent nation but not the Polish forces in the West. The Poles were technically RAF and the Canadians technically RCAF but the Poles were probably actually given a greater degree of operational autonomy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Fighter Command exercised operational control of all UK based RAF and RCAF fighter squadrons and no squadron had any special leeway in terms of operational autonomy - to state otherwise would be to make an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. However, No.1 RCAF squadron was the only unit which could have been withdrawn from the battle by orders from it's government, as it was the only non-RAF unit in the battle, which was under the ultimate control of an independent government.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point, there were technical differences between the status of the Canadian RCAF pilots and that of other nationalities but do you not think that it is giving undue weight to these differences to list the country of Canada as a belligerent in the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There were much more than "technical differences" between RCAF pilots and Polish or Czech pilots. RAF pilots including Poles and Czech were, in fact, members of the same branch of the RAF while No. 1 squadron RCAF pilots were members of an independent nation's airforce serving in the UK. I don't see how recognizing that Canada was an independent nation that had sent an entire fighter squadron to fight against the Luftwaffe is somehow giving undue weight to anything; it is simply a historical fact and needs to be recognized as such, as the article does, indeed, do.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to press this point. Let us wait to see what others say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed something. Have a look at No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron where it says, 'No. 303 was formed in Britain as part of an agreement between the Polish Government in Exile and the United Kingdom'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to recognizing the participation of the Poles, Czechs, and the other Allied and Commonwealth countries that provided personnel to the RAF during the BofB, but this is the most relevant sentence in the the No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron article: "It was the highest scoring RAF squadron of the Battle of Britain." Governments in Exile are wholly dependent upon the good graces and support of their sponsor nation, and are not in any sense sovereign governments. All the personnel in 303 Squadron were members of the RAF, not the Polish Airforce.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned earlier that Canada could have withdrawn its forces. I am sure that if the Polish Government in Exile had decided that the RAF was acting against the Polish national interest they could have instructed the Polish pilots to withdraw their services. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming a mountain out of a molehill type discussion - there is another article dedicated to Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain which goes into this in greater detail, so there is no need to extend this article any further. Fact is Canada provided a squadron and its personnel to support Britain in its time of need; how does one define giving undue weight to recognising this? How many squadrons should Canada have committed to allow it to become notable enough to be included as a nation in a Wikipedia article? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems undue weight to me to list Canada as a belligerent nation but not the Polish Government in Exile who provided pilots for 16 squadrons of the RAF.

Could we not remove Canada (and Italy?) as belligerent nations from the infobox but provide a stronger and clearer link to Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain where the matter can be treated properly (and of course mention these in the body of the article). I am not seeking to downplay in any way the important (possibly decisive) role played by Non-British forces in the BoB, but listing just one country on the basis of a technicality gives an inaccurate overview of the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Pray provide us with the names of the "16 squadrons" that the Poles provided to RAF? The Polish Government in Exile did not have the right or ability to withdraw forces, as it had no forces, as the personnel were directly enlisted in the RAF.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The first 100 Polish pilots that arrived in England, were assigned to a number of RAF squadrons, so the statement above, actually refers to the 16 squadrons that had Polish aviators. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC). BTW, even when No. 302 and No. 303 RAF squadrons were formed, they still operated under RAF Command and Control structure, even to the extent of having English-speaking RAF officers in place, with their Polish counterparts essentially acting as "shadows". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Again, how many squadrons or how many personnel does it take to ensure that a nation's contribution to the RAF no longer has "undue weight" or can be described as a "technicality"? Undue weight as defined by Wikipedia means pushing a POV which is demonstrably false or in a minority - simply representing Canada as a belligerent and noting why in a note is hardly harming the article. Nor does it mean that 1 RCAF squadron has been given undue weight in the text as making a major contribution to the battle. Canada raised a squadron as part of its own air force then sent it over in its entirety to GB to help bolster Fighter Command - what's wrong with acknowledging that by showing Canada as a belligerent ally to Britain in the info box? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The film The Battle of Britain listed all known contributions from pilots of various countries in the end-credits - that might be useful as a guide for the article in terms of 'style' - the film's data would have to be verified in the Reliable Sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I may be accused of treason for saying this. ;p Nevertheless: adding Canada as a belligerent is undue. We were Commonwealth, under Brit command, & a single squadron doesn't IMO rise to deserving of mention in an infobox. On the page, yes, along with 303 Polish & the Czechs & Free French & Eagle Squadron & the White Russians for all I know. ;p Not the infobox. And can we stop discussing this now? It's getting silly. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CSIS is searching for you as I write this...:) However, the facts are very plain; No.1 squadron RCAF was the only non-UK squadron that could have been ordered withdrawn from the battle by its' government and as such Canada deserves mention as a separate nation. Whether other nations should be mentioned is another issue, but Canada was an independent country in 1940, and it supplied an RCAF fighter squadron to the battle. Other nations have had forces under UK operational control, and have received national recognition in similar articles, so clearly this is not a disqualification. However it is an absurd idea that Canada would have to set up an alternate, but parallel, command structure to RAF FC, to gain separate national recognition.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

IDK if I entirely agree with it, but you make a persuasive argument. (Note, I don't suggest we weren't independent as a country, just as Oz & NZ were, only junior partners.) I'll make no further demur.

I should also say, en passant, there were RCAF bomber squadrons that could have contributed, if less directly. Offhand, IDK if any were operational or in Britain; I don't recall any. The Prisoner ^{call me 006} 04:01 & 04:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)