Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Likelihood of operation Sea Lion taking place

"If Germany had gained air superiority over England, Adolf Hitler might have launched Operation Sea Lion, an amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain."

The above sentence appears in the first paragraph of the page, and as such is the most read, thus I felt it right to achieve some consensus on whether it should be rephrased, and if so how. I contend that the sentence is misleading at best, plain wrong at worst. Very few historians believe that the Germans would have undertaken Sea Lion even if they`d achieved their best possible result, i.e. forcing the RAF to withdraw NW of London. Many, including many high ranking members of the German Wermacht thought Sea Lion was just a device to put preasure on the British to come to terms. It is just possible that a weaker leader than Churchill may have been tempted if the RAF had withdrawn, but Sea Lion was never going to succeed, and, most likely, never even be attempted. Even Churchill thought an attempted German invasion "a good battle for us" (to win) had they attempted it.

Furthermore, I feel the sentence is misleading unless air superiority is defined, which it isn`t here. For example, the Germans could have had air superiority (as in more planes in any particular area near the Channel coast) as it was.

At the very least I think a stronger word than "might" (have launched Operation Sea Lion) should be employed

I recommend reading the autobiographies of Galland and Doenitz, plus reading Sea Lion v Overlord, and the Sandhurst Sea Lion wargame. --JustinSmith (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree that the military effect of the BoB can best be expressed by saying that without (any kind of) air superiority an invasion was clearly impossible?

Whether an invasion would have actually occurred is not that important. The continued threat of an invasion could still have changed the whole course of the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence concerned could be improved: this issue is not whether or not the invasion was likely with the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of secret Nazi discussions, the issue is that invasion was seen by the UK as a genuine threat, the battle ended the public credibility of the proposed invasion, and the battle finished the perception abroad (particularly in the US) that the UK might be the next state to be toppled by the Nazis. These were much more important in the context of the war than a later debate about whether or not air superiority might have made an invasion possible. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, on that basis I've boldly changed the sentence to:

"By preventing Germany from gaining air superiority, the battle ended the threat that Adolf Hitler would launch Operation Sea Lion, a proposed amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain."

Hope that works for both of you, . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. I still think, however, that the article does not fully explain the profound effect that the battle had on the course of the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-enthusiastic editing

In most dialects of English it is common to use a hyphen to make the sense clear. For example, 'I need to get over-enthusiastic editing' is not the same in meaning as 'I need to get over enthusiastic editing'. Not a very good example but I hope you can see what I mean. In some dialects it is more common to combine the words without a hyphen as in 'overenthusiastic editing' but in British English this is less common. Obviously one would not expect to find every pair of words that might be hyphenated in a dictionary, because it is two words but hyphenated to make the meaning clear.

This article is written in British English and has used the term over-enthusiastic for some time now to accurately describe the way in which aircraft kills got over-counted. Because an editor does not like hyphens is not a reason to reduce the quality of the writing of what is perfectly good British English. Please can we have our hyphen back? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The term is not in any dictionary I can find, are you sure of all of this? I am an editor in the real world of the back colonies of Canada, and typically when there is a "made-up" word such as this, it is considered a colloquialism and non-standard. (Note "non-standard" is acceptable, as is "nonstandard" because both words are found in dictionaries, as bona fide entries.) Even "over-counted" is not a word, but another example of a "hyphen attack". If you have been in the Wikiwackywonderland at its beginnings, prose was rife with words that were made-up and hyphenated terms were commonplace until the Dictionary police arrived on the scene. (See the usual, If you have been in the Wiki-wacky-wonderland at its beginnings, prose was rife with words that were made-up and hyphenated terms were common-place until the Dictionarypolice arrived on the scene, note sarcasm here.) Unless there is some substantial and verifiable evidence that "over-enthusiastic" is actually an acceptable idiom, phrase or statement, when "overenthusiastic" is the only dictionary version found; I would be utterly supportive if there is some precedent in Britspeak for this terminology, but have yet to find such fare. FWiW, I am not totally a prig, merely a strict adherent and advocate for correct spelling. Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

In the OED over-enthusiastic, adj. is an entry ("headword") in its own right; it seems that User:Martin Hogbin's edit should stand. However, overcount (n. and v.) is given without a hyphen. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the term, however, even used correctly as it appears to imply that the exaggerated Luftwaffe reports of "victory claims" were merely the result of an over-enthusiastic report, and not that they were examples of the "heat-of-battle" inexactitudes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

In this context, overcount makes fewer assumptions about the "enthusiasm" of those reporting, unless that's what the ref gives us—we can't tell, because it's incomplete. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has read 'over-enthusiastic' since 2009! This is not my edit but a return to a long-standing version. My use of 'over-count' here was somewhat jocular and irrelevant. There is no reason why inexactitudes should overestimate rather than underestimate the kills. Enthusiasm is a reasonable, not too accusatory way of explaining what often happens in these cases that has been accepted for several years.

As I explained above it is not reasonable to expect every hyphenated term to appear in the dictionary. The word 'over' could be combined with almost any adjective in the right context; dictionaries can hardly be expected to list them all. As it happens, the OED does list 'over-enthusiastic'. In general, British English tends to hyphenate where US English combines. see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Compounds_and_hyphens. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way Bzuk, I have never thought or suggested that you were 'totally a prig' just that you were not a native speaker and writer of British English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That was definitely my characterization pour moi, and my wife and a legion of others will attest to that; as per Britspeak, surely you know that Canajans can do it both ways! (Pardon the rude inneundo, but Canadianisms are a bizarre mixture of both British and American dialects.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, Bzuk no rudeness was intended on my part. It just seemed that you had a non-British view on the use of hyphens to join up words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

... and I agree with that, but your statement that "it is not reasonable to expect every hyphenated term to appear in the dictionary" defies logic, especially if you have ever used the print or non-print versions of the Oxford English Dictionary. There is a difference between hyphenated words that are made-up and ones that are legitimate variations; see: "over-enthusiastic" and "over count". FWiW (check the statement in the article now) Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Have a look at Hyphen#Compound_modifiers. The hyphen is a punctuation mark and can be used as such to make meanings clear. When a hyphenated pair of words is used regularly it becomes a hyphenated word but the hyphen can be used between words that are not usually hyphenated to make the meaning clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know all that but it is the over-exuberant, mark-up and sentence-paragraph-passage-notations that makes the Wicki-wacky-wonder-land, a difficult mine-field to ne-got-iate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

I think that is enough about a single hyphen. The point is that the article was absolutely fine and perfectly correct British English as it stood for several years and that no change was necessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you didn't notice that it was one of three changes that were made, and even at that, the edit was reversed, when identified as an entry in the OED. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

I was only referring to your 'over-enthusiastic' edit not your general copy editing which was appreciated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

RAF fighter pilots chances of survival.

I have a problem with this paragraph :

At all times, new pilots had "almost no chance at all" of surviving their first five sorties because of inexperience, because they received the most-damaged and least-reliable planes, and because they were likely to be their formations' "tail-end charlie"s and thus most vulnerable. For the survivors, the odds of survival rose during the next 15 sorties as their skill and confidence grew. After 20, however, the odds again decreased to zero.

If the above were true the loss rate of Fighter Command pilots in the BofB would have been far higher than it actually was. Let`s face it the implication of the above paragraph is that all pilots were killed, which is very far from the truth. I think it should be rewritten.--JustinSmith (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Korda has a particularly pessimistic opinion about the young pilots that were committed to battle. In a personal interview of a BoB veteran, the former SQD LDR indicated that the replacement pilots often only had as little as eight hours on type and were not even able to keep formation and definitely had no time to practise air fighting or even fire their guns. Time after time, these young pilots were not returning from missions, resulting in the more experienced pilots assigned to the more dangerous role of "tail-end" charlies. In many cases, if there was a "pro" in the squadron, he was also assigned to mentor the young 'uns. This is Korda's opinion of the "cannon fodder" treatment of the young pilots, but it is certainly substantiated by many other accounts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Have to disagree, Bzuk. Yes, the experience fliers had an edge & the rookies were essentially cannon fodder. However, as presented, the impression is misleading. It's comparable IMO to the often-stated proposition Bomber Command crews had zero chance of surviving a 25-mission tour. It's prima facie untrue. Clarifying can't hurt. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that new inexperienced and under trained pilots obviously had a far lower survival rate, but the only way the paragraph I object to could be true (BofB pilots had a lower loss rate than Bomber Aircrew, particularly in 1940) is if all the new pilots got killed and all the experienced pilots (who were in at the start of the battle) survived, which is a ridiculous assertion to make--JustinSmith (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I agree, it needs clarifying. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the above paragraph is extremely problematic and can't possibly be true, especially given how many new pilots joined the ranks of RAF FC from July 10 onward and given the fact that most shoot downs did not involve pilot fatalities. Anecdotal statements should be used with caution and only to illustrate a point that is backed up by other data.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to alter the offending passage but rather than just use general terms it`d be better if someone has the actual loss rate statistics for the battle, has anyone got them ?--JustinSmith (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that all of you are missing the point, the statement in question is a paraphrase of a historian's assessment and is attributed as such. If you have a contrary or opposite source, then state it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

I don`t think we are missing the point, the point being that Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate, that`s the most important thing, by far. There will be people reading that pargraph who then think all pilots in the BofB were killed, that is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Are we saying anyone can quote anyone else whether they`re accurate or not ? if we are then Wikipedia falls into disrepute.--JustinSmith (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, the quote is: "new pilots had "almost no chance at all" which is not saying all of them died; it merely states a truism, that without adequate training and with faulty tactics that were first employed, the newcomers were at a distinct disadvantage. Other historians may be able to cite statistics that would verify or disprove the statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

I agree with Justin. The paragraph at present means that no pilot survived more than 20 sorties. I do not believe that is true. Clarification is clearly needed.

Could we not start with something less definite such as "new pilots had a slim chance of survival". Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what Dowding has to say on the matter:

170. The First-line strength of a Squadron

was 16 aircraft, of which not more than 12 were intended to be operationally available at any one time. The other 4 would normally be undergoing Inspection or Overhaul. In addition to this there was a small reserve-of three to five -aircraft per Squadron available on the station. 171. There was a limit to the number of trained pilots which could be kept on the strength of a Squadron even in times of operational passivity, because not more than about 25 could be kept in full practice in Flying Duties. 172. A fresh squadron coming into an active Sector would generally bring with them 16 aircraft and about 20 trained pilots. They would normally fight until they were no longer capable of putting more than 9 aircraft into the air, and then they had to be relieved. This process occupied different periods according to the luck and skill of the unit. The normal period was a month to six weeks, but some units had to be replaced after a week or 10 days. 173. Air Vice Marshal Park found that the heaviest casualties were often incurred by newly-arrived Squadrons owing to their nonfamih'arity with the latest developments of air fighting. 174. It soon became impossible to maintain the to-and-fro progress of complete unit personnel from end to end of the country, and the first limitation to efficiency which had to be accepted was the retention of the majority of personnel at' Sector Stations and the transfer only of flying personnel and aircraft crews. This limitation was regrettable because it meant that officers and men were strange to one another, but worse was to come. 175. By the beginning of September the incidence of casualties became so serious that a fresh squadron would become depleted and exhausted before any of the resting and reforming squadrons was ready to take its place. Fighter pilots were no longer being produced in numbers sufficient to fill the gaps in the fighting ranks. Transfers were made from the Fleet Air Arm and from the Bomber and Coastal Commands, but these pilots naturally required a short flying course on Hurricanes or Spitfires and some instruction in Formation Flying, Fighter Tactics and Interception

procedure.

Dowding, THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Paragraph 173 seems to be a good summation of the problem.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

None of this justifies the use of the phrases, 'almost no chance at all' or 'decreased to zero'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree, and I think the current wording should be changed to a quote from Dowding, or something similar.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. As it stands the present claim has not been properly cited - is this from Korda? - and it needs to have something more substantial to back it up than just claiming "almost no chance at all": where did that claim come from, and was it true? In its present form this paragraph is not encyclopaedic. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

First phase

After the completion of Adlertag, The Hardest Day, and the Battle of Britain Day, does anyone think it would be too excessive to add the Kanalkampf or some such article pertaining to the sea/air battles that cover 10 July to 12 August 1940? Dapi89 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible results of a German victory at the Battle of Britain

As suggested above, I have started an article on the Possible results of a German victory at the Battle of Britain by cutting and pasting material from this article. I intend to start expanding it from a source that I have to hand (Bungay) but obviously we must present a balanced view of what is said in sources.

As this is a matter of opinion an speculation, it will be particularly important that we only add what is said in good quality reliable sources and not editors' personal opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Results of British defeat/failure/ capitulation/abandonment

I suggest that the article should mentions something of the expected result had Britain lost the battle or capitulated or given up. This would have resulted in the lasting domination of Europe by either the Nazis or the Soviets, totally changing the outcome of the war. Any suggestions where to say this and how to say it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See The Man in the High Castle and SS-GB, but frankly it looks unknowable and we really need a source for such speculation. – update, there's lots of 'em, but all fiction. . . dave souza, talk 15:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have Bungay in front of me and he quite clearly says what I say above. I will look for other sources but, with one good quality source, we could add something unless there is a source which suggests a different outcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Having had a look at the intro by A. J. P. Taylor in Len Deighton's Fighter, this appears to have been a matter of expectations, and would work as an introductory section or possibly paragraph at the start of the background section. We should cover the Mitchell / Douhet doctrine, and the point that Inskip in December 1937 anticipated the need for Britain to survive and stay in the war, so recommended a focus on building fighters and got the agreement of cabinet against opposition from Trenchard and the Air Marshals. The Germans seem to have assumed that Britain would agree peace once France surrendered, the Americans were determined to stay out of such a war without confidence that Britain could survive. So we could open with these anticipations. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of something in the 'Aftermath' section. There is nothing saying what would have happened had Britain lost. At the very least, had Germany achieved its aim of complete air superiority Britain would have had to, sue for some kind of peace. The best that could have been have been hoped for would have been neutrality. Even that would have sealed the fate of Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In a way, it's more significant to note at the outset the pre-war expectations of countries being forced to sue for peace if they lost control of their airspace to superior bombing forces, and a new first section would be worthwhile. That could also note the arms race in aeroplane development. We do cover it implicitly in the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, it could be made explicit there with the addition of a second sentence to the first paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason that we should not do both. I will add something to the 'Aftermath' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the 'Aftermath' section but I am thinking of making it into a paragraph. I am just pondering how to word it without quoting too much from Bungay. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitter experience has shown that as soon as such speculation is added to this article it becomes a fertile breeding ground for people to add a great deal more speculation and argument. You quote Bungay, someone will add another historian with a different opinion, after which another opinion will pop up. I suggest before you start adding to the "Aftermath" section go through the archives and see the rancour and aggravation opening up this particular can of worms leads to. My advice is avoid speculation about what might have happened had Germany won - that is one very good reason it has been avoided. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt? What alternatives to Nazi/Soviet domination of Europe do historians propose? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look through the archives and not seem much argument about this subject. Can you show me where please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: is there any doubt...? Guaranteed there are plenty of revisionists who will find doubts, and authors to support them: to see how such "debates" have arisen these are just a few of the threads that have erupted from someone taking exception to a particular POV being expressed: [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] Again, bitter experience has shown that if you start adding speculation to the mix, or the opinions of one author, the outcome will be yet more debates of this nature and lots of editing and counter-editing. If you want to put this in go ahead but be prepared to follow up with some logical arguments. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just looked through your diffs and I do not see this subject being discussed. Just to be clear, I am talking about the possible outcomes if the Nazis had achieved their objective of air superiority over Britain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, it is time for us to mount an article called something like Possible results of a German victory at the Battle of Britain. So many writers have expounded on the topic that is surely meets WP:GNG. Here at this article we would briefly describe the main points and then send the reader off to peruse the article full of various sorts of well-sourced conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea, but not as a solution to this issue; we need to say something here. More speculative discussions on the subject(from good sources, of course) could be added to your proposed article. I may try to have a look at some books on the subject to get an idea what the range of hypothesised outcomes was. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the world's expert regarding a notional German victory over Britain, but the proposed article would at least want to mention all the fiction that has been written that is based on the idea. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Look again at the diffs; I did not say they discussed this specific topic, but it doesn't take a genius to see how arguments will develop over what is, after all, speculation and theory - be prepared to have people arguing things like:"Phooey, the B of B wasn't that important that it would dictate the course of world events to the extent claimed by Bungay". Or "This is such an egotistical, British centred POV" etc. etc. etc. - it might not happen straight away, but guaranteed it will happen.

Secondly, To what extent do you intend detailing the hypothesis? Do you intend explaining the background behind Bungay's thinking vs what other historians might say? have you looked at other POVs? Unless you have a good idea of exactly where this is going, and how much longer it will make an already overlong article it might not be worth the trouble it can cause. Up to you, I've said all I'm going to say, Good luck. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there will be some objections but decisions in WP are not made on the basis bizarre accusations of nationalism but by reference to reliable sources, in this case the opinions of historians of the subject. So far we have a good quality source stating what to most people is obvious, that the British could not have continued to wage war against Germany having completely lost air superiority over their own territory.

I have already added one sentence but I propose to expand it into a paragraph in line with Bungay. I will also have a look for more sources on the subject but unless someone can come up with a viable alternative hypothesis, supported by a good quality reliable source I see no reason that we should not state the effect that losing the battle would have had on the future of the war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would respectively suggest that there is no reason to include a section on "What if" because ther was never a realistic chance that Germany could have successfully invaded the UK. Including such a section just gives the wrong impression that it may well have happened.--JustinSmith (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you but others do not; respected historians have said an invasion was possible. Regardless of the likelihood, many authors have written about what might have happened, giving us the topic of an article full of fine conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether an invasion was possible, whether it would have been attempted, and whether it would have succeeded are all very speculative subjects, I agree, and are therefore not suitable for inclusion here, but that is not what I am talking about or suggesting that we add to the article. The point is that had Germany succeeded in its objective of gaining air superiority over Britain then Britain could not have continued to wage war against Germany.

As the article itself states, Hitler's aim was to bring Britain to the negotiating table and remove them as belligerents from the war. Had Germany gained air superiority Britain would have had to come to some arrangement to stop the bombing. Again, one can speculate as to what this arrangement might have been, from actively joining Germany for a share of the spoils to merely some non-aggression treaty, but Hitler would most certainly not have allowed the Royal navy to attack German ships or opposing forces from any country to be stationed in Britain. Even if, the British had not realised the hopelessness of its situation the US would have and there is no way that they would have sent forces to Britain to be bombed and strafed at will. With German air superiority over Britain the war is western Europe was over. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think most informed people agree that the best possible result for the Luftwaffe would been to force the RAF to move their squadrons to airfields NW of London (which was out of range of the Me109 from bases in France). That would not have given them air superiority, certainly the required total air superioroty, over any airspace over the UK mainland.--JustinSmith (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are addressing the wrong question. I am asking what would have happened had Germany achieved its objectives of obtaining air superiority over the UK. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Martin, these was a possibility of Germany achieving air superiority over the UK, at least one that was considered credible at the time, and had they done that the course of the war would have changed. While we don't need to speculate on how they could have achieved it, the range of the Me109 from bases in France could readily have been extended by drop tanks. The sentence added to the Aftermath section is an improvement, I've moved it up to form a new opening pragraph with the first sentence, and split the paragraph: in my opinion that improves the flow and logic, feel free to revert if you disagree. While I'm struggling for time at present, I did find some references earlier about the pre-war worries over the bomber will always get through and Things to Come, ( for example [8] [9]) and about the ramping up of British fighter production before the war: that seems inadequately covered at present, and would form a good opening section. If desired, I could start that on the basis of Deighton's Fighter. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

By the time the use of drop tanks on Me109s was practical Britain`s readiness for war, critically its armament production, was on a par with that of Germany, in fact in some areas it was actually higher, and so any (very remote) possibility of a successful invasion, had long gone. Remember, the UK Government was sufficiently confident of Britain`s war potential to send 50 tanks (of the mythically non existent British Army tanks) to Egypt in Aug 1940. I recommend reading "Britain`s War machine by David Edgerton.
Anyway, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia (of facts) not speculation, however interesting it may be.--JustinSmith (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My reasonably reliable source indicates that the Heinkel He 51B was fitted with drop tanks in 1935, and Galland had successfully flown them [HE 51C] in Spain. The Bf110 was fitted with these tanks from the outset, but despite this experience, the Bf109E was not fitted with the shackles and fuel lines until the E-7 which did not arrive in service until August 1940. So, drop tanks were practical but were not implemented. The source goes into more detail about the implications, if this topic needs addressed. . dave souza, talk 23:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC) tweak 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty well agreed by historians that, if Germany had achieved air superiority over the south of England and London, Britain could not have remained at war with Germany. Although an invasion was a possibility, more likely was a some kind of deal. There were plenty in the British government who wanted peace and Hitler also wanted a deal as this would have let him concentrate on the eastern front.

Assessments of this kind are fine in WP, provided they are from good quality reliable sources and not by editors here. If you know of any sources that say that Britain could have remained actively at war with Germany in the event of German air superiority then we should also mention them here. As with other battles, the purpose of giving historians' assessments of alternative outcomes is to show the significance of the battle in the war. We should aim to give a balanced view of what reliable sources say about the significance of the B of B in WWII. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we give reasonable coverage to the impact of the B of B on U.S. reluctance to support the UK, but we only make a passing reference to Operation Barbarossa. On pp. 284–285, Deighton comments that the Germans failed to learn from the Battle, keeping to short term planning with hopes of a "quick war" and forbidding work on the Me 262, with later implications. Even after the battle's stalemate, "Hitler decided that Britain's reluctance to make peace was due to its belief that one day the USSR would fight Germany. To cut this Gordian knot, Hitler decided on a 'quick war' against the USSR. After this, he said, Britain will make peace." Do other historians discuss these aspects? . . dave souza, talk 23:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Bungay discusses these issues but my main point is that, I do not think there are any sources which say that, with German air superiority over London, Britain could have continued to wage war with Germany. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, even if air defences could have remained intact to the north, German air superiority over London would have prevented anything better for the UK than a stalemate forcing some sort of armistice. We give a lot of weight to the view of Alfred Price which seems to play down the attrition of British aircrew and the need for US suppot, is his view generally agreed by other historians? On the current wording "with the US being able to do little to change things", my suggestion would be "with the US unable or unwilling to do much to change things." That covers the possibility of the Kennedy faction prevailing and the US refusing any assistance to the UK. . . dave souza, talk 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My main point is that, with German air superiority over London and its inevitable consequences (a non-aggression pact with Germany at the least, an invasion at the most) there would be nothing the US could do even the best will in the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern remains that the quote from Price almost suggests that victory was inevitable, and both it and the line that "the RAF could have withdrawn to the Midlands out of German fighter range and continued the battle from there" neglect the significance of the southern area radar stations. Had they been destroyed, RAF fighters would have lacked the necessary direction. However, surely historians will have considered these points. . dave souza, talk 15:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Galland "First & Last" :
Page 18 (on NW of London) "German fighter squadrons.....could barely cover the SE parts of Britain. Everything beyond London was out of reach".
Page 52 (On drop tanks whilst recounting a fighter sweep by him in March 1941) "Now, at last, having ejectable fuel tanks".
Even if RAF fighters operated from bases NW of London that would not mean that the Germans had any more air superiority over London (and much of the SE) than they had before. In some cases it was actually a disadvantage to be too close to the front line because RAF fighters were at their most vulnerable whilst climbing to the attack. And, significantly, any RAF pilots bailing out would still be over the UK regardless of where their home bases were --JustinSmith (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are answering a different question. The question that I am attempting to answer is, 'What would have happened if the Germans had won the B of B?'. That is to say, if Hitlet had achieved the objectives of his air war.

It may be that Britain could have prevented this by a strategic withdrawal to bases out of range of the Germans, I doubt this, it would have just prolonged things, but that is irrelevant. The question is what if Hitler had succeeded. A separate but interesting question is, 'What where his chances of success?'.

"German air superiority over London and its inevitable consequences (a non-aggression pact with Germany at the least, an invasion at the most)" What makes you think these were anything like credible, let alone "inevitable"? In the first place, the Germans had failed to "destroy" the CH or CHL stations; indeed, there was scant effort spent on trying. (It was a lot harder than the Germans thought, & they didn't really understand how important the stations were to begin with.) In the second, even without radar (& that presupposes knocking out every single CH or CHL station, a long shot at best), why would the Brits cease to try & defend? In the third place, the Germans made a haphazard effort (to put it charitably...) to interrupt fighter production or defenses; so long as those survived, "non-aggression pact" was far from necessary, never mind "inevitable". So unless you can offer credible historiography to support these flimsy claims, stop now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What I say is indeed based on a reliable source, Bungay, who says that had Britain lost the B of B they would have had to negotiate with Germany. Do you have any sources which say that Britain could have continued to actively pursue war against Germany after losing air superiority?

Maybe it would have been possible in retrospect for Britain to have hung on but you forget the morale and politics. With the air war lost morale would collapse and those in the government who supported peace or appeasement would have had a greater voice. In order to keep the British quiet Hitler would have offered good terms.

All speculation because it did not happen - does such speculation belong in an encyclopaedic article? I say, once again, that this type of addition to the article is just going to lead to all sorts of argument and the expenditure of a great deal of time and frustration. But, if you're determined to go ahead you had better be prepared to have a convincing case well in advance.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this proposed addition is fraught with peril and probably best avoided altogether. However, the fact remains that the Royal Navy retained such a superiority in Channel waters that any German invasion was likely to fail, and to fail badly, taking what was left of the Kriegsmarine with it:

"Even if Hermann Goering's Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF - necessary to ensure a successful offensive landing - the formidable Royal Navy still had to be contained. This was not a task the German admiralty relished as its fleet had suffered heavy losses in the Norway Campaign. A lack of proper invasion barges would have meant improvised craft navigating across a lengthy stretch of water peppered with mines, whilst dodging British warships. This, followed by landings on a heavily defended coastline, would have been extremely difficult. Disagreements also raged between the German army and navy over the size of the landing front. General Halder, Chief of the General Army Staff , at one point in negotiations exclaimed: 'I utterly reject the Navy's proposals [for landing on a narrow front]. I might just as well put the troops through a sausage machine!" [10]

The most likely scenario if the the RAF "lost" the battle would have been for it to pull back from the coast, out of Luftwaffe fighter range, and concentrate on defeating unescorted raids, whilst rebuilding it's own strength. Any German invasion would face the full wrath of the RN and almost certain defeat. The onset of bad weather in fall and winter would allow the RAF time to rebuild, and with it any chance for a renewed Luftwaffe daylight offensive in the spring.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Britain could have continued to actively pursue war against Germany after losing air superiority" In the first place, Germany was incapable of achieving air superiority. In the second, air superiority alone proves nothing, or Germany would have surrendered some time in 1944, when the Allies owned the sky over Germany; you'll notice, she didn't. In the third, even allowing this would have enabled Sealion to be carried out (which is a stretch into the fantastic), Britain could dead easily have set up a government in exile in Bermuda or the Bahamas (not Canada, as often mooted). So, yes, Britain could & would have fought on. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculation?

It was not my suggestion that we should include in the article our own speculation about what would have happened had Hitler achieved his objectives in the B of B. On the other hand it is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia to include what good quality reliable sources say on the subject. If they disagree the we should give a balanced overall view of what they say.

Can we keep this conversation to what sources say on the subject rather than giving our own opinions. At the moment, I am giving the opinion of one good quality source, Bungay. I believe that there are other sources that say similar things. On the other hand, if there are sources which say that Britain could have continued to fight after losing the B of B then they too should be represented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I provided a lengthy quote from a BBC webpage devoted to the topic at hand, and sourced it with a link, above.Of course any source is just speculating, when it discusses events that didn't happen.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any source which says that Britain could and would have continued the war against Germany if the Germans had achieved air superiority over the south of England. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." - W.S. Churchill in an address to the House of Commons, 4 June 1940.

Churchill states pretty clearly that the UK would not surrender and that it would take a German invasion to conquer Britain, and even then the British Empire would never surrender. In Chapter 14 of Their Finest Hour, Churchill discuses the possibility of an invasion and the very low probability of it's success, something that he reiterates in the Hinge Of Fate, when examining the fate of German seaborne invasion attempts against Crete, in May 1941, in waters where the Luftwaffe had complete and unchallanged air superiority.

Realistically what else was he supposed to say: "we will surrender if you kick us hard enough"? A speech in wartime is bound to be propaganda. I thank WC and all who served in the war for my freedom today, but we must remember the circumstances in which the speech was made. however I truly can't see the point of running a "what might have happened" section in an encyclopedia. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about Churchill's post-war writings, not his wartime speeches. Churchill as a history writer generally has the respect of other scholars, though there are certainly points of possible criticism. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Had Britain lost the B of B it is highly likely that Churchill would have been replaced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'what might have happened', the question we should ask ourselves is whether historians consider this important. Many do and, if they do, so should we. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The UK was a parliamentary democracy. Churchill had a strong majority in the House of Commons and easily survived several confidence votes later in war. In the Fall of 1940, barring a successful invasion, it was highly unlikely that Churchill would lose the confidence of the House regardless of the outcome of the BofB. This whole line of discussion is moving farther and farther into fantasy.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not my fantasy but what sources say. That is the only basis on which we should edit here. There are sources which do discuss the likely outcome had Britain lost the B of B and there are sources which say that the result would have been Nazi/Soviet domination of Europe. As far as I know, there are no sources which say that Britain could and would have fought on had Hitler achieved his B of B objectives.

I agree that our speculation on the subject is pointless; I will have a look at what more sources say on the subject and bring them back here for discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The plan was that if Operation Sealion looked like being carried out that the Royal Navy would summon ships back from overseas and the invasion forces would have faced a considerable proportion of the whole navy rather than just the Home Fleet. The Admiralty stated to ministers (Churchill) that it would be prepared to lose almost its entire ship force to prevent invasion. This would almost certainly have annihilated the invasion fleet. At the time the Royal Navy had something like 200 destroyers, the Kriegsmarine had 10 (ten) after Narvik. So the Luftwaffe would have needed to have sunk a lot of British ships to have allowed a successful invasion of Britain. This strategy of using almost the entire Royal Navy to thwart an invasion was naturally not publicised at the time as it would have left large parts of the empire without a naval presence.

In case of capitulation of Britain then government would have been transferred to Canada as that was where Britain's gold reserves had been transferred to. The plan was to then carry on the war from there.

In what manner would the war be carried on from Canada? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I suspect that the remains of the navy would have been involved - as would the Royal Canadian Navy which was about to be greatly expanded - as that would have been the only practicable method available. Possibly the bombing of Germany may have been carried out from across the Atlantic, using new types of long-range bombers that would have needed to have been designed. It's possible that they may have had the MAUD Committee report in mind. But it's difficult to say because there isn't a lot written about it as it never happened.

If however people like Lord Halifax had managed to oust Churchill and gain power then peace would likely have been made with Germany and the Second World War would have ended there-and-then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I take it that your comment, 'the Second World War would have ended there-and-then' is intended to mean that the fate of continental Europe would have rested entirely in the hands of Hitler and Stalin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If Britain and her empire had made peace then the 'Second World War' would have ended as it was only the involvement of France and Britain and their empires that had made it a 'World War' in the first place.

... but in answer to your question, yes, that is effectively what the situation would have been.

Results of victory

"Luftwaffe strategy was in fact a supreme assertion of the theory favoured by air marshals that bombing unsupported by land and sea forces could win a war. The Luftwaffe's attempt to reduce Great Britain by bombing failed, perhaps by a narrow margin." ....... "The Battle of Britain was a fairly small affair. Hitler called off Sea Lion on 17 September and there was never any attempt to repeat it. Hitler was not seriously troubled by this setback. Sea Lion was a botched plan, rushed up in a hurry and without importance in German strategy. Hitler's mind was already set upon the invasion of Russia and he did not fear that the British, though unsubdued, could do him any real harm. The British on the other hand were invigorated. They believed they had won a great victory or rather that the pilots of Fighter Command had won a great victory for them. And so they had. The British were a maritime people. They had learnt in previous wars that their task was to survive, and victory in the Battle of Britain enabled them to do so. To some extent their confidence was misplaced. Great Britain came nearer to defeat in the prolonged Battle of the Atlantic against U-Boats than they did in the Battle of Britain. But psychologically the Battle of Britain was more decisive." ......
[discussion of bombing campaigns].. "The Battle of Britain had a more profound effect. It put Great Britain back in the war. After the fall of France it seemed that Great Britain could make no stroke against Germany except such marginal acts as the attack on the French fleet at Oran. Hitler himself, to adapt MacArthur's phrase, was content when he left Great Britain to 'wither on the vine'. Suddenly the British showed that they were still in the war and still fighting. The Battle of Britain, though a defensive battle, was at any rate a battle. Thanks to it, Great Britain was still taken seriously as a combatant Great Power, particularly in the United States."
A.J.P. Taylor in foreword to Deighton's Fighter, pp. 16–17. Sort of inverts the question, but shows clearly the expected effects of losing. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The problem is that this article does not properly reflect the significance of the battle. Losing the battle meant Europe would at the mercy of Hitler and Stalin, with no way for anyone, including the US, to reverse the situation. Winning the battle resulted, after a long war, in victory for the allies. This seems to be the view of most historians. I had hoped to look at some more sources but have not yet had time to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Aftermath" section is halfway there, but it wanders off into "claims of numbers of enemy aircraft shot down" which really belongs in attrition statistics. Perhaps we could retitle the section along the lines of "Results of victory" or "Outcome of battle", and tighten it up with a focus on just that topic, moving other aspects elsewhere. The paragraph about "the RAF could have withdrawn to the Midlands out of German fighter range" is very speculative, and both it and the Price quotation could be moved into a subsection about speculation on chances of survival or the like. dave souza, talk 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft Production

I can't find anything about aircraft production. There is a new book out about Ernest Lemon who apparently, during the run up to the War, transformed the aircraft supply chain, having previously done the same thing for the his railway company employer. Apparently aircraft production was falling behind target until he reorganised it so that it moved ahead of schedule. It is a sobering thought to consider what might have happened if production had fallen still further behind. The "Few" wouldn't have been much use without planes! Would we all now be in the German Empire?

It might be worth studying this book and incorporating a discussion of the influence of the supply of aircraft on the success of the Battle. Anyone up for it? Budhen (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another of the factors is often said to be Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook. Deciding who is more influential is tricky. However Aitkin's effect on the volume of weapons produced has been debated, as some say that aircraft production was already increasing when he took over. According to Deighton, the volume of aircraft production in Britain exceeded Germany's in August 1940. Apparently some factories in Germany were still producing wallpaper. JMcC (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on fighter aces would be a good addition?

http://www.acesofww2.com

If 1887 axis planes were shot down and Brendan shot down 32 of them that means he shot down 1.6% of all the axis planes.

Preferably I'd like to know how many Me 109's were shot down, I'd assume probably around ~1000 or so?

One particular southern Irishman who joined the British armed forces, to fight the axis, continues to hold a uniquely distinct honor, Brendan ('Paddy') Finucane the youngest Wing Commander and fighter ace in the RAF's history, who, before the age of 22, achieved one of the highest kill rates in the Battle of Britain, shooting down 32 axis planes (23 of which were Me 109s) in his shamrock crested spitfire.

Fighter aces is an interesting subject in relation the the BoB. There is a good argument put by Bungay that the differing Axis and Allied attitude to fighter aces was an important factor in the battle. The Axis put much greater emphasis on the performance of individual pilots, in particular fighter aces, the Allies were more concerned with team effort. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely 32 is Finucane's (possible) total of aircraft destroyed during his entire career? He only had two confirmed during the BoB according to his Wikipedia page, and it can't be that much out. --Mabzilla (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be different accounts on his total confirmed during the BoB Mabzilla, one source states he was one of the highest scoring fighter aces during the BoB. - you might be redirected to the main page with this link, but just hit UK on the homepage and you'll find Finucane. http://www.acesofww2.com/UK/aces/finucane/

Martin Hogbin That is an interesting, and probably decisive insight, in respect to the outcome of the battle, from quickly scanning, it does appear that more joint kills are declared with allied pilots than axis pilots, but do you agree a fighter ace section is worth an addition nonetheless?

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in adding yet another section to an already long and detailed article, apart from which adding a section on B of B aces will be guaranteed to add another layer of bickering and controversy. If people are dead set on covering all these issues start new articles and see how much traction they gain before augmenting this article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it really cause bickering? I think all we would be doing is adding the information from referenced sources, that's all. No personal opinion would come into it. Something short like a table of the top 20 aces would be just perfect for the article, unless it will be completely dominated by Axis pilots? Secondly(and maybe to balance that first table) another short table on the Allies number of enemy aircraft shoot downs, per day/month, comparing when they achieved the upper hand in creating an unacceptable attrition rate in the enemy wouldn't go amiss either, it would be pretty informative even?

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that people might argue is not a valid reason for not putting something in the article.

I do not have a strong opinion on a fighter aces section but I tend to think that fighter aces are not particularly relevant to the BoB. More important is probably the more general observation that the top, say, 20% of pilots on both sides probably accounted for 80% of the kills (I do not have the actual figures). Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that a section on fighter aces would really add that much, a few lines of summary probably but articles like The Few should cover this sort of ground. In the article on Paddy Finucane it says he only claimed two destroyed, two probables and one damaged in the BoB so not really notable against the total of 188 British aces in the Battle. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.acesofww2.com/UK/aces/finucane/ An Irishman who became one of the most decorated Spitfire Ace’s during the Battle of Britain. That's where I first read about him, and wanted to see other high ranking allied aces of the BoB. So although most of his confirms were not in the BoB, he did shoot down Adolf Galland in 1941. Either way, Finucane may not be in the BoB's fighter ace high ranks, although the 2 probables were issued to him eventually if you take a harder look. Point is, it doesn't really matter if he's in the BoB table or not, I'm just wondering if we should have the top 20 (alluding to the 80/20 rule) as was suggested by Martin Hogbin, and an attrition rate table.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep coming back to the “acesofww2” reference; despite some interesting contemporary material, this is flawed by poor editorialisation. For instance, “An Irishman who became one of the most decorated Spitfire Ace’s during the Battle of Britain”. In fact, Finucane didn't receive his first award until after the battle - 13th of May 1941. And it isn't stated in the Wikipedia article on Finucane that the two “probables” later confirmed were from the BoB and not later claims. As you say, it doesn't really matter if he's in a "BoB table" or not, so can we please drop his case from any further discussion on a “BoB table"?--Mabzilla (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, if you want to know more about Brendan Finucane then by all means check out the references on his page rather than his page itself, but somehow explaining to you how I came to be curious about a BoB fighter ace table has unwittingly struck a nerve in you? As I have said it doesn't really matter if he's in the BoB table or not, I'm just wondering if we should have the top 20 (alluding to the 80/20 rule) as was suggested by Martin Hogbin, and an attrition rate table.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on Chain Home

The curator of 11 Group Ops Room at RAF Uxbridge claimed that the attacks on the Chain Home stations were halted because much less effective mobile units were put in place and were operating quickly. Since the stations were still apparently transmitting soon after the raids, the Germans concluded that they were invulnerable with their operators in underground shelters, whereas in reality they were in wooden sheds on the surface. If this can be referenced, it is an important element in the Germans' miscalculations. JMcC (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The radar towers themselves, being open steel pylons, were very resistant to attack, certainly from blast damage. Attack by special forces might have been a better option. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Chain Home stations had duplicated equipment that could be switched-over should the main one fail, and in addition each main site had an underground reserve, so a total of three transmitters/receivers, i.e. triple redundancy, the third backup being underground and known as a 'buried reserve'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-war accurate loss statistics?

I can find the RAF's official statistics easily enough, but I'm aware those are highly inaccurate. Comparing with this amazing page! and looking at The Greatest Day for instance, it seems the RAF over claimed about 2 to 1. Does anyone have a tabular format day-by-day account compiled from sources on both sides of the battle? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you would find some of the figures you need in Bungay's book, 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Too much bun, not enough meat!

I suspect that if one comes to this page they are looking to read about the Battle of Britain. Instead, they will find page after page after page of information that isn't about the battle. Information about the actual battle does not start until after 1/2 of the way down the article! And when one takes out the references and such, the resulting description forms less than 1/4 of the article body!

I absolutely believe that some "setup information" is required in most any historical article, but something is very much wrong when that information forms the vast majority of the article. Its as if you went to read and article on the Corvette to find a complete history of the development of the internal combustion engine. Entire sections of the article appear to have nothing to do with the topic; "Bomber and Coastal Command contributions" seems to be far too long, in the wrong section, and I'm not sure much of it even has anything to do with the Battle other than taking place at the same time. Bomber Command was carrying out missions in Europe while El Alamein raged, but I don't think it would deserve mention there - yet here is text about attacks on targets in Germany.

This article requires serious work. Significant sections should be removed to other articles and turned into single paragraphs. I will do this immediately for the Dowding system, which deserves its own article anyway. I would encourage others to apply the same razor to other sections.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! I'm always for a better reader experience, and your suggestions will contribute greatly. I will be interested to see the Dowding article you write. One minor point: remember Dowding at first recommended the Hurries and Spits use a widely dispersed gun harmonisation scheme, but the BoB taught him otherwise, and the guns were afterward boresighted for concentrated fire. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Steady on with your Dowding system trimming, it was this system that won the battle for Britain. I could do with its own article though. I agree with most the rest of your comment. Everybody wants to get a mention here Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't see your point in complaining that "Bomber and Coastal Command contributions" is either too long or has little to do with the B of B; this is a mistake that is often made by people who know little about the subject: the Battle of Britain was not fought by Fighter Command alone and this should never be forgotten. Read the section more carefully, instead of judging it against whatever undefined criteria you are trying to apply; everything Bomber Command and Coastal Command in Britain was doing was designed to disrupt any potential invasion, as well as an attempt to disrupt either the Luftwaffe at their airfields and bases - often at extremely high cost to the (usually) Blenheim crews - or the Luftwaffe's supply chain. To claim that these operations had little to do with the B of B is completely wrong, while your point about El Alamein is a spurious red herring. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsection merge

Fighter formations needs to go under Tactics somehow. Anybody have any ideas how to accomplish this? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like you could just move it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Invasion vs negotiation

The current 'Background' concentrates on a possible invasion and the likelihood of its success. Equally import and probably more likely, had things gone against Britain, was the the possibility of a negotiated end to hostilities. This would have had equally bad (or possibly even worse) consequences for the world as a successful invasion would have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If Britain and her empire had negotiated a peace with Germany in 1940 then the Second World War would have ended there-and-then. Simple as that. Hitler and Nazi Germany would have won. That was what Britain and her empire were fighting against. And they did it out of choice, because it was the right and noble thing to do. It literally saved Western civilization.

BTW, it only became a world war when Britain and France entered in 1939, as they both had worldwide empires that effectively meant that other parts of the globe were simultaneously also at war with Germany once Britain and France had declared war. They also had large navies that roamed the world's oceans. Hence large parts of the world were then at war with Germany. So Hitler may have still gone on to invade the Soviet Union but it would not have been a de facto 'world' war. Same with Japan, who's empire only extended as far as the far east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Care to add something about that to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Canada again

I notice that an editor has moved Canada from being a belligerent proper to being in the incorporated air forces section. I tend to agree with this. I know that his has been discussed at some length before and that the Royal Canadian Air Force did send units to fight and I do not want in any way to belittle the contribution made by Canada to the BoB, but it does seem a little odd to list Canada as a belligerent nation in the BoB.

I have a suggestion, which is to leave things as they are but to add to the existing note that the Canadian pilots in the BoB were technically flying for the RCAF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although some Canadians also flew in the RAF (particularly Americans pretending to be Canadians) MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to a recent edit and my revert, I have added a note explaining the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I had argued for Canada's inclusion as a belligerent proper because of the contribution of No. 1 Squadron RCAF. Other national units like 303, 242 or the Eagle Squadrons were RAF squadrons, while No. 1 was actually an RCAF squadron that was seconded to the RAF. There had been arguments that as an Article XV squadron No. 1 was just RCAF on paper and was really made up of RAF personnel (a fate of many Article XV squadrons, but in No. 1's case, not true), or that because they fought under RAF strategic control they were RAF. I continued to argue my point and finally it was agreed to include Canada as a belligerent because No. 1 Sqn was a unit from an independent air force, not from within the RAF. The greater point behind my bloody mindedness of course was the fact that the BoB was fought by people from many countries, and before then that fact had not been acknowledged. Now it has, which is laudable, and the fact that Canada was a small but still important exception to how other countries contributed, is still noted. However I should point out that your note is not correct, as not all Canadian pilots were technically in the RCAF; Some were in the RCAF and were members of No. 1 Sqn RCAF for certain, but there were RCAF pilots in RAF units, and Canadians who were in the RAF and had nothing to do with the RCAF. And most of those Canadians in the RAF were Canadian, not Americans pretending to be Canadian. OK, I'll get off my soapbox now lol. McMuff (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point and have no desire whatsoever to downplay the contribution made to the BoB by other countries. The note that I added made it quite clear that No. 1 Sqn was technically a unit from an independent air force, however, it was under the complete operational control of the RAF. Listing Canada as a beligerent nation but not listing any of the other countries that proved significant support to the British in the BoB, because of what is essentially a technicality seems in my opinion to give Canada undue prominence. I believe that my compromise of listing Canada along with other supporting nations but including a note stating that a squadron was technically RCAF is fair. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an outrageous and utterly false re-write of history. The RCAF fielded the only independent, non-RAF, fighter squadron that participated in the BofB. This was discussed at length and the consensus as I recall it was to leave Canada as a separate independent belligerent where it belongs.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are exaggerating somewhat. There was never a clear consensus and the situation regarding the RCAF squadrons is not that clear cut. Listing Canada as belligerent nation makes no sense. My note explains exactly what the situation was. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus means that we leave it as it was.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the change log, I see that the change to remove Canada as a belligerent was never stated as such, and that there has been considerable resistance to the change, but unfortunately I missed the original change because it was not stated. The edit was done in such a way as to circumvent the lengthy discussion recorded on this in archive 10, which is annoying to say the least.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK rather than edit war let us open this to a wider audience and have a RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The facts

In preparation for further discussion and an RfC if we cannot reach agreement here I suggest that we state the undisputed facts of No 1 squadron RCAF involvement on the BoB here. The summary below is taken from No. 401 Squadron RCAF

The unit began as a permanent peacetime unit which, augmented by personnel from No. 115 Squadron RAF, arrived at its first base in the UK, Middle Wallop, on 21 June 1940 ... until mid-August when it moved to RAF Northolt.

The squadron moved south again in February 1941 when it arrived at RAF Digby. It was here in 1 March that No 1 Squadron RCAF was re-numbered to No. 401 Squadron...until October 1941, t it then moved south to RAF Biggin Hill and remained in 11 Group carrying out offensive operations over Occupied Europe until January 1943.

Moving to RAF Catterick in early 1943, the squadron was involved in training and coastal patrols for four months before returning to 11 Group in late May, where the squadron reverted to Spitfire Mk IX's and became part of No. 126 Wing, No 83 Group, 2nd Tactical Air Force (2TAF). The unit resumed operational flying from RAF Redhill in June, and RAF Staplehurst in August and Biggin Hill on October.Operations prior to D-Day were flown from RAF Tangmere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RCAF Command structure during the BofB:

"On the formation of R.C.A.F. Overseas Headquarters, effective January 1st, 1940, Wing Commander F. V. Heakes, who had been serving as R.C.A.F. Liaison Officer for some years, assumed temporary command and with a small staff made the preliminary arrangements for the reception, accommodation, equipment and training of 110 Squadron, which disembarked on February 25th. On March 7th, 1940, Group Captain G. V. Walsh, M.B.E., arrived from Canada and took over command. He was subsequently appointed Air Commodore and served as Air Officer Commanding the R.C.A.F. in Great Britain through the momentous summer and early autumn of 1940, being succeeded on October 16th by Air Commodore L. F. Stevenson." (The RCAF Overseas, p.35). So while the RCAF's No.1 Sqn was under the operational control of 13 Group RAF, it was still nominally commanded by an RCAF air commodore, who in turn was taking orders directly from Ottawa.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Another quote, this one from Men, Arms and Government, p.255: "In all circumstances a Royal Canadian Air Force Officer Commanding has the right to communicate with his immediately superior officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force with regard to any matters which he may wish to bring to attention, notwithstanding that these may relate to matters wherein authority is exercisable by the Royal Air Force. . . . After emphasizing that the powers of the R.A.F. officer commanding a combined force were exercisable "within the limitations laid down in the Visiting Forces Acts", the letter went on: Royal Canadian Air Force units, formations and the personnel thereof, in the United Kingdom will come under the command of the Senior Officer of Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain, except to the extent that, when "acting in combination with the Royal Air Force, they are, within the limitations set out above, under the command of the Officer Commanding the Combined Force. The relationship between Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain and the Air Ministry will be one of close liaison, but not of subordination. . . . " Damwiki1 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on RCAF 401 squadron incorrectly states that RCAF No.1 fighter squadron absorbed personnel from 115 RAF squadron, when, in fact, it absorbed personnel from 115 RCAF squadron. I have edited the article on 401 squadron accordingly.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no doubt that Canadian forces played a very important role in the BoB. The question to be decided is whether the country Canada should be listed as a belligerent nation in the BoB when countries who supplied more pilots (but no aircraft) are not so listed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue raises the issue of whether we should show 'any' other countries as belligerents in this battle. The battle was exclusively commanded and controlled by the British at all levels, from overall strategy to individual sorties. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to downplay the important role of other allied forces in this battle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at some length. Canada fielded No.1 Fighter Squadron, which was a RCAF permanent force unit, previously based in Canada, and was equipped with it's Hurricane fighters while still based in Canada. The unit was then shipped overseas to the UK where it was the only non RAF fighter squadron in the Allied order of battle. The unit, as I have shown above, was nominally commanded by a senior RCAF Air Commodore, who, in turn, took his orders from Ottawa. Many non-UK Commonwealth personnel served in the BofB, many of whom were non-RAF but only Canada sent one of it's permanent force fighter squadrons to the UK, which in turn was under the nominal command of a senior RCAF officer and thus Canada was a co-belligerent.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You say 'nominally commanded by a senior RCAF Air Commodore who, in turn, took his orders from Ottawa'. Is there any evidence that the squadron ever acted independently from the British command structure or that Ottawa actually gave any operational orders? It was part of 11 Group for much of the time so would have been controlled by Park.

This arrangement is more of a secondment of a squadron to the RAF than action by an independent belligerent state. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's completely untrue (and gross insult to the RCAF and Canada in general) and would be a violation of Canadian law. No.1 squadron served in the UK at the pleasure of the Cdn government and it could be withdrawn or commanded in anyway the Cdn Government saw fit; the fact that the Cdn government chose not to exercise it's right to operational control doesn't change the facts that it was an independent unit of a sovereign nation's airforce. The Cdn government went to great lengths to ensure that Cdn sqns would be independent units of the RCAF responsible only to Ottawa, with operational control delegated only so far as it was needed for coordinated action against the enemy. Your argument seems to be that no matter how many sqns Canada sent to the UK, they would never give Canada belligerent status because they operated within Dowding's Group system, and even if Canada fielded an entire Group, it would necessarily have to share squadrons with other Groups because of the need for rotation. However there is an interesting analogue to this situation; the Japanese air raids against Darwin in 1943: Raid on Darwin (2 May 1943). During these raids the RAF squadron was under RAAF operational control, but it would be absurd to suggest that the UK was not a belligerent in that campaign, just as it would be absurd to suggest that Canada was not a belligerent during the BofB.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read your addition above, which in my opinion still refers to a kind of secondment, and still am not sure that this arrangement is sufficient to call Canada a belligerent nation in the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See my reply especially regarding the RAF in Darwin.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See also the North Western Area Campaign and re-read the last sentence of my entry in The Facts Section: "...The relationship between Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain and the Air Ministry will be one of close liaison, but not of subordination. . . . ", which also describes the RAF's participation in the Darwin campaign while under RAAF operational control.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the North Western Area Campaign but I still would refer to this as a secondment rather than action by an independent force. I guess it all depends on the definition of 'belligerent'. You make a good argument and, although I am not completely convinced, I am not going to take this any further though as I think the effect of the British victory (see section below) is more important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)