# Talk:Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)

Page under construction. Dapi89 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The following should be made clear:

What was the purpose of the British raid? To sink German ships, test the defenses, or just be a nuisance?
The British did not bomb ships close to land, but strafed the Flak gunners on them, and on the shore?
No attacks were made on ships at sea? Was this because none were found?
Were any ships sunk or damaged?
Drutt (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be. I've willfully neglected the article. I am going to give it a shot in the arm now. Dapi89 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thread necromancy:
As far as I know, both the Germans and the British were very reluctantduring the first months of the war in letting the air war escalate. Both had strict regulations about valid targets. For example: Warships on sea and on road were viable targets. Warships moored at a quay were not, due to the risk of hitting civilians.
There were several attack runs which got aborted because the crews weren't allowed to drop their bombs (on both sides).
Well, in this case they coudn't drop their bombs but I guess they thought it would be ok to fire back at AAA.
~MadCat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.159.81 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 

The intention was to bomb German warships reported by reconnaissance. No bombs were dropped because the warships were in harbour and both the British and the Germans had signed up to President Roosevelt's moratorium on bombing civilian targets (though the Germans delayed signing until they'd finished devastating Warsaw). Both sides did this because, ultimately, they were scared of reprisals from the other side. Wg Cdr Kellett could not bomb warships in harbour because civilian dock workers and civilian property might be hit. The British repudiated the moratorium in May 1940 when the Germans invaded France and Churchill, newly installed at No.10, authorised night bombing of oil targets in the Ruhr. However, the British still emphasised military targets. Later that summer a German aircraft mistakenly jettisoned its bombs over London, the RAF raided Berlin in response and the Germans repudiated the moratorium altogether and embarked on the outright and overt terror bombing of British cities. As it turned out, the Germans made a catastrophic error in agreeing to unrestricted air warfare, because the Luftwaffe was only prepared for a short, tactical war with medium bombers, whereas in 1939 the RAF was already committed to the expansion plan that would produce dozens of heavy-bomber squadrons and the aircrew to man them by 1943. The Germans short-sightedly and vainly embarked on the war in 1939 convinced that they would only have to deal with the 1939 RAF that they could see before them. Their intelligence was bad and they knew nothing about the training and procurement plans, already in hand, which meant that the RAF of 1939 was only the egg from which the terrible eagle would hatch in 1943. In effect the Germans made the classic playground error picking a fight with a bigger boy. So half a hundred Nazi cities burned. As British soldiers like to say when some idiot gets his head blown off, 'This is what happens when you don't pay attention.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Decent location maps of the Heligoland Bight area seem to be rather scarce. The current image in the article has empty space where the Heligoland Island is. I can probably put together a map of a similar scale with better detail if desired.
Perhaps the map to the right, or a derivative, would also be of use. It can be used with a template to show where the Bight is, and also gives a good idea of where to battle took place compared the UK and Germany.
(Hohum @) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A better suggestion than my clumsy efforts. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
?


### Comments
Some citation tags need looking at  Done
There are a number of disamb links that need fixing Honington, Jagdgeschwader 1, Mildenhall and Wing Commander  Done
Germany in the inf box should direct to Nazi Germany  Done
There seems to be too many commanders listed in the inf box four for the three RAF squadrons and six for the German. Can theses be cut down to Wing of senior level commanders.  Done
This needs re-wording as it sounds as if they started before the declaration of war Which had been sent to sea before the British declaration of war and began operations against British shipping  Done
This bit in the Prior operations section seems out of place No. 9 Squadron RAF also took part, hitting targets in Brunsbüttel. they took off to bomb three warships but one squadron bombs Brunsbüttel instead ?  Done
Again in the Prior operations section at first the ships are named as Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Admiral Scheer but later it mentions Emden was damaged.  Done
I think the middle section is overcrowded with images and at least one RAF and Luftwaffe plane could be deleted  Done
Still thinking about the RAF formation instead of the aircraft number in the image use the names and delete the order of battle. OK bit more If we take away the image and list all we have left in the RAF section is The RAF forrces came from three squadrons, totalling 24 Wellington Bombers from No. 9 Squadron RAF, No. 37 Squadron RAF, No. 149 Squadron RAF.[29] The British bombers flew a diamond shape formation. This needs expanding possibly by turning the list of aircraft/commanders etc into prose  Done - the text is less confusing and people now have a neat list of pilot/aircraft no/squadron and an easy numbered image which they can follow. Dapi89 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In the aerial engagement section  fire from the German units, 214, 244 and 264 what type of units were they did they have a regiment etc Same next line down  Done
In the bibliography = Hooton, E.R.. Luftwaffe at War: Gathering Storm 1933-1939, Classic Publications, 2007 does not appear to have been used  Done
The cite book template could be used
Some books lack publishing locations  Done
Richards, Denis. Royal Air Force 1939–1945:Volume I  needs an ISBN if one issued  Done


### Further comment
References  both Caldwell & Muller and Caldwell and Muller is used, can the all be changed to the second option as & are discouraged.  Done
I don't know if you caught it above the the RAF section needs beefing up. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)  Done


### Comment
Re: image and RAF orbat. I think it would be a good idea to do as you first suggest. I think deleting the numbers and adding in the names to people know who was placed where. Is this okay? We tried a prose version but it looked like a bit of a mess. Hohim changed it and I think it looks better with the image. Do I have to use the cite books template? Dapi89 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not a GA requirement but it does help getting them right --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the Luftwaffe section can the bullet points be converted in prose --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Done
I think it was but Hohum changed this into bullet points. I'll switch it back if needs must. Dapi89 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Passed Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Great Britain" is wikilinked to United Kingdom. You might get away with "Britain" as that's often used, but Great Britain is emphatically not the same thing as the UK: Northern Ireland is (and was in 1939) part of the latter but not the former. 81.158.2.195 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Rm duplicate wikilinks, redn size of maps photos, rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard of a family name Heolmayr (Holmes 2010, p.71). The letter combination "eo" is rather uncommon in German, except for loanwords. I assume this is a reading or writing error. Perhaps that Unteroffizier from around Bavaria went by the name Hoelmayr, Hollmayr or Heilmayr. --Kolya (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Steinhoff was not a Squadron Leader (Major), just a Flying Officer. --2A02:908:1222:C020:959B:EA6B:B5E7:7A37 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

perhaps you're confused. Major is a rank, it has nothing to do with the title of Squadron leader (Staffelkapitän) which is not a rank in the Luftwaffe (it is a rank in the RAF). Dapi89 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is misleading
It says "The battle led the RAF to abandon daylight missions in favour of night bombing as daytime casualties were too high. In the build-up to the war, the RAF had adopted the mantra that "the bomber will always get through" but in daylight the Heligoland battle had shown this was not the case and it forced a reappraisal of bombing operations."
The idea that the reappraised daylight missions is not in dispute. What is relates to the idea that they abandoned daylight operations altogether. They did not
Wiki provides an article (page) "Royal Air Force daylight raids, 1940–1944" that details those raids
The attack on the Tirpitz HAD to be undertaken in daylight

Montalban (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)