# Talk:RAF Coastal Command during World War II

In January 1942 it was decided that the limit of long-range aircraft endurance should be the crew’s limits, (due to extreme aircrew fatigue seriously effecting efficiency) not the fuel supply of the aircraft. de la Ferte decided, on 7 January, that sorties should not exceed 14 hours, which reduced flying hours by four per mission. This was despite the entry of the very long-range Liberators in June 1941. The Liberator Mk I had a stated Air Ministry range of 2,720 miles, but crew endurance methods now meant it would be airborne for just 2,240.
This is an interesting point because this 14-hour limit seems arbitrary unless one has actually tried doing these sort of hours at a stretch. Back in the 1980s I was a Computer Operator for a well-known company and did shift work as-a-norm. For about a week after we had an operator leave I was needed to do double 8-hour shifts, from midnight to 16:00 in the afternoon. I did a week of them and they just about killed me. The first couple of nights/days weren't too bad but at the end of the five days I walked home hallucinating, and slept continuously for two days and nights, and nothing on earth would have been able to wake me. The thought of doing the same sort of hours in an unheated, noisy, bomber, flying over a vast, featureless sea, the monotony and the boredom, often in the abysmal North Atlantic winter weather, is not to be underestimated.
de la Ferte was probably right, sorties longer than 14 hours would have almost certainly been in the long run counterproductive. It's probably no coincidence that the post-war Avro Shackleton was designed for a 14 hour endurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.79.113 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 

Glad you appreciated it.
Thanks for the copyedits. You're doing great work. If you have any info, perhaps you could start the two empty sections at the bottom of the page?
I'll get around to it at some point if not. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid I don't have anything much to add for the later sections as the post-war period is not really my forte, although I'm generally familiar with it and can spot the occasional 'howler' if necessary. If I leave it to you when you have the time, I'll get back and copyedit it when I can. Excellent article BTW. I'll also carry on copyediting the main Coastal Command article when I get the time - I got started the other day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.88.254 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Great. I hope that you may be able to add some content. Though if you're pressed for time, I shan't complain about copyedits. They need it. Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:RAF Coastal Command during World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The article is very well written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References are well used and numerous.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Covers the subject comprehensively.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article maintains a neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article is not subject to any edit warring.
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): 
All images are covered by public domain or fair use licences. Could File:Vickers Warwick B ASR Mk1 - BV285.jpg now be tagged as in the public domain?
Overall: Excellent article. This covers the topic really well. Harrison49 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

The article is hard to read for someone not knowing what is ASV and what is A/S.  I eventually understood that ASV might stand for Air-to-surface-vessel, but then from context I am beginning think ASV really is used to mean an air-to-surface-vessel radar, as opposed to an air-to-surface-vessel missile or anything else.  Please someone edit to make this make sense!  Note ASV (disambiguation) is not as helpful as it could be.
About "A/S", from context following shortly after mention of "Air Staff" i wonder if it means Air Staff, as in Coastal Command A/S being meant to indicate Coastal Command Air Staff.  Or does it mean "anti-ship"?  Reading the article I was mostly trying to make sense of things by going with the hypothesis that it was about anti-ship missiles, as my best guess.  And then note that A/S redirects to AS (disambiguation), where the nearest possibility suggested is that it is about Submarine tenders, as in the prefix used by U.S. for identifying such ships.
Also there is a complete non-sentence: "By then ASV capability for radar homing, all-weather capability and short-take off capability."  Huh?  No verb, have no idea what was meant. --doncram 09:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) --doncram 13:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, from Anti-submarine warfare article,  "Anti-submarine warfare (ASW, or in older form A/S) is a branch of naval warfare that uses surface warships, aircraft, or other submarines to find, track and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines."  It is really not clear in this article yet though. --doncram 23:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by User:Dapi89 I have had a think as to why mention of duties in the cold war is not off topic and have been unable to find the answer that clearly is expected. Please could you spell out the reason please? There is another article RAF Coastal Command which should be the home for non WWII sections. At the moment there seems to be too much overlap or duplication.SovalValtos (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, as you cannot do it by yourself. The simple answer is: WWII was not the end of Coastal Command. One sentence is sufficient to convey that point. One sentence was given to it. It has not been challenged for a good few years and there is a reason for that.
I'd encourage you to do some more thinking. There is no duplication on these articles. The enormity of the 1939-45 topic was deserving of a separate article. It is also a good one I might add (classified as such). Please read both more carefully than you have done so far please. Dapi89 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It does seem sensible to mention this, but the body of the article doesn't have any material on Coastal Command's post-war transitions. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want mention of CC's postwar work, put it on the Coastal Command page, where it belongs, not here, which is about CC's wartime work.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Nick: Yes it is. I can add a brief part on immediate post war, anti-Soviet operations.
Trekphiler, I don't need you to tell me what either article is about. I created this one and I filled in both. You're being absurdly petty. One line is merited, one line it will get. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Petty? I don't care who created the page. That doesn't entitle you to special privileges on deciding what goes in & what doesn't. One line or one paragraph or one section, it's off topic: the page title clearly states "WW2". What part of that don't you get? You want it somewhere, there's a whole page on Coastal Command you can use, where I (for one) will raise no objection. What, exactly, is your fixation on adding it here?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty standard for works (books, articles, etc) on units in World War II to conclude with a brief discussion of their transition into the post-war world. Such material would not be off-topic if it's linked to the command's wartime structure and experiences (for instance, was their an emphasis on retaining the elements and personnel which had proven most effective while dumping inefficient tactics and equipment?). I don't think that the rude comments here and in edit summaries are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Nick-D. A section on the transition to peace would be useful. A summing up of the state of personnel, equipment and infrastructure at War end, with the plans that had been made for demob and disposals for the post war world looks in order. Until that is done no content in the lead that does not refer to anything in the body of the article should remain. It is nice that the page was rated GA a while back, with collaborative work it should be able to progress to FA. SovalValtos (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments taken on board by Nick-D and SovalValtos. By the way, have you seen the latest edit summaries? I will produce something tomorrow. Dapi89 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we have an agreement then, but this other editor (Trekphiler or whatever) continues to revert to impose his will on this article despite our apparent consensus. Something will be done about him soon if he carries on. Dapi89 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As the content that was said to be going to be produced tomorrow, four days ago, has not materialized I am removing the disputed content until such time as it founded on material in the body of the article. SovalValtos (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got some stuff on this which I'll ad soon. Dapi89 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe the section would benefit from an image of an aircraft used by Coastal Command in flight over the coast, the use of which was in some dispute with the RAF Bomber Command. Without such the section just shows a Sunderland (clearly no controversy) and a Liberator in flight over England from later in the war, neither of which illustrates the issue. If not this image than the section needs another like it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Gunbirddriver an image of a Coastal Command Beaufort would be appropriate as it would illustrate the material in the text. An image of a Fighter Command aircraft (from 5 OTU Fighter Command) is less appropriate particularly if captioned deceptively as being from Coastal Command. Similarly the image of a Liberator used seems to be of a Bomber Command plane rather than one from Coastal Command. Can we find more suitable images of actual Coastal Command aircraft?SovalValtos (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see I made an error. The heading said "(Coastal)". I did not realize they meant the coast of Australia, for heaven's sake!!
Here are a number of other possibilities. Any one of them is fine with me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of fine possibilities. Three or four aircraft images should suffice. Perhaps an Anson, a Sunderland and a Liberator, any others being accessed via commons. Commons might benefit from a Coastal Command category.

I am swapping the Bomber Command Liberator image for a Coastal one.SovalValtos (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

After skipping over a number of dubious and unclear statements as not worth bothering with, I came across this:

 In July 1942 the U-boats became aware of Coastal Command aircraft using another innovation – sonobuoys, which were thought of as the air equivalent of the Navy's ASDIC. A U-boat reported them on 29 July being dropped in the north transit area, and they were thought by the enemy to be devices for preventing U-boats from travelling on the surface. They were, in fact, for detecting submerged U-boats, and were used by No. 210 Squadron RAF, operating Sunderlands. In operational records they were coded High Tea. Most crews were unaware of their existence. The devices stayed in use until 1998, when some wartime crews saw them for the first time. Until then the RAF had kept them secret

Sonobuoys are the aerial equivalent of ASDIC. That is literally what they are.
Sonobuoys "stayed in use until 1998, when some wartime crews saw them for the first time"? This statement, taken literally, claims that the RAF designed a Sonobuoy Mk.1 in 1942, and used that same model from then until 1998, under strict conditions of secrecy (even though sonobuoys were a well-known item throughout the world in every other nation), when the Sonobuoy Mk.1 was finally retired and replaced by the more advanced Sonobuoy Mk.2, whereupon the astonished veterans were finally allowed to glimpse this Most Secret, classified equipment with their own eyes for the first time. Or alternatively, the UK stopped using sonobuoys entirely in 1998, for some strange reason, and the public was finally allowed to see them for the first time. None of this makes any sense, on several levels. I seriously doubt the UK used the same exact model of sonobuoy from 1942 to 1998, I doubt they kept them secret when everyone else in the world knew what they were, and I doubt they stopped using sonobuoys, either the WW2 relict model, or sonobuoys in general, in 1998.
More likely, the UK, being rather paranoid, only finally declassified their WW2 model sonobuoys in 1998, in spite of the long time since it had been replaced. But making it official policy not to publish photos or details of a piece of equipment is not the same as "keeping it secret". Nuclear warheads are classified, yet they are not secret.

70.16.213.248 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)