Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 2

message: I'm just wondering, why aren't the Commonwealth Air Training Schools mentioned in the article, didn't they train most of the pilots? MattD-July 1st, 2006 (Canada Day)
:British Commonwealth Air Training Plan says that the scheme started in May 1940.  I would have thought that would be too late for many pilots to have been trained and then to have participated in the battle given that it finished in October.  Shimbo 08:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth Air Training Schools=

message: There are full length articles on both of these.  Both seem to cover much the same ground.  Why does Wikipedia need two?
:Because they are not the same thing.  The Battle of Britain was daylight attacks in the summer and early autumn of 1940 preparatory to a (cancelled) invasion.  The Blitz was night time attacks in the winter of 1940/41 in a (failed) attempt to terror bomb Britain into submission.  The reason there is some overlap in the articles is that some people don't realise this and put information in the wrong article.--Shimbo 12:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Britain vs. The Blitz

message: I re-inserted the statement that BoB was the first major battle to be fought entirely in the air. Whoever disagreed with me cites the bombings of Britain in WWI, but I would submit that these were not major battles. It's hard to imagine them having the same strategic effect that the BoB had. Brittanica says "The first major battle fought exclusively in the air"  similarly   and  and  and  and  DJ Clayworth 16:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the statement at the top of the Roll of Honour page is inconsistent with the actual numbers listed by name i.e. if you add up the individual names listed there are 2440 British and 510 from overseas. --Shimbo 20:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major battle

message: Hi, there is considerable doubt about the term "dowding-system" since it is hard to find sources about when and by whom such a term was installed (except of the english wikipedia), can anyone bring light to that ? rgds--80.121.111.78 13:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dowding-System 

message: Does anyone know if the beams were used in the daylight battles and hence this belongs in this article or were they used at night and hence this section should be part of The Blitz?  They were certainly more important at night as without them the aircraft had dificulty finding their targets.  I'll move this unless there are objections. Shimbo 09:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of the Beams

message: I noticed the text "The German airforce also shot the British Prime Minister" under the topic "Luftwaffe targets RAF airfields", I suppose it's vandalism. Thought I'd edit it out, but I couldn't locate it. Anybody know what to do?
More Vandalism? - Emma Hobson?
...theories on strategic bombing, such as those espoused by Emma Hobson.
 :I've removed this until someone can verify it.--Shimbo 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Why is there nothing about the barrage balloons in here? There were a lot of them, and they did significantly deter low-level bombing, among other things. Scourgeofsmallishinsects 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrage balloons 

message: I removed this paragraph:
actually in the battle of britain the australian contribuion was very slow in process as the asutralians didnt know about how often the bombing supplies would be sent. The reason for this was that their communication was low and they couldnt be told of the rate of income and import to the australian defence force.
I'm not sure exactly what someone is trying to say here but it's very bad English and unreferenced. Shimbo 09:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I went and watched various Anzac day parades in Melbourne. The uniforms were indeed a dark blue, so much different than the British uniforms, more like Navy. The Aussies provided so many pilots. You would think so from tgese articles. Wallie 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Contribution

message: There is some discussion about the friction between Hugh Dowding, Keith Park, Trafford Leigh-Mallory  and the Air Ministry due to the use of "small wings" versus "big wings", leading to Dowding's and Park's separate dismissals. Perhaps this should at least be touched on in the Battle of Britain article, as the different fighter tactics contributed to the outcome. Blue Wizard 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Wing Controversy 

message: Ok, in the 'Luftwaffe Strategy' section, we say German Intelligence in Britain was fractured. If I recall, the truth is even more interesting, but we don't seem to link to this info. In fact, British Intelligence ran a fake German Intelligence network in Britain during the war. If there isn't somewhere to link this, and nobody else has a source, I'll dig one out, write some stuff somewhere and link it. 57.66.51.165 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no connection. The Double-Cross System targeted Abwehr agents, & AFAIK, Luftwaffe never used agents; they relied on B-Dienst, photo recon (overheads, as they're now called), & that like.  Trekphiler 11:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence

message: Why is it, that altho New Zealand aparantly had the second highest numbers in battle, there is no deeper focus as with the other countries later down the article?
I'm not sure about this, unless it has something to do with NZ personnel being widely dispersed throughout the RAF and actual RNZAF units not arriving in Europe until after the Battle of Britain.  Of course, there were notable Kiwis in the RAF, such as "Cobber" Kain and Air Vice-Marshal Sir Keith Park.
--MarshallStack 23:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand involvement?

message: Can anyone provide reference for RAF 74 Sqn being called "South African" other than its commander being "Sailor" Malan, a South African?  Unlike the other Dominions, there was no separate South African Air Force during WWII.  South African air squadrons were part of the Army and wore Army uniform with a distinctive cap badge and RAF-derived aircrew badges.  The main difference was that their aircraft roundel centres were orange, rather than red.  South Africans in the RAF wore RAF uniform with "South Africa" shoulder titles, as pictures of Group Captain Malan will show.  There were no entirely South African-manned units taking part in the Battle of Britain, though there were of course South Africans in RAF units.
On the same note, rarely, if at all, were Dominion units entirely Canadian, Australian, South African or New Zealand-manned.  There was much interchange of nationalities between RAF and Commonwealth units, though possible exceptions of course were home-based Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and South African units.--MarshallStack 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  74 Squadron "South African"? 

message: does anyone here know what the significance of the Battle of Britain was or is.
:Can I suggest that you read the article?  Particularly the section Aftermath. Shimbo 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading Wikipedia:Civility Shimbo 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's better. Now, please tell me, does the article answer your question or would you like more help? Also please check out Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages Shimbo 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The significance of the Battle of Britain, and all World War articles is that a hell of a lot of people died or lost everything they had. If you were born after the war, you are extremely lucky. This may be POV, howeverWallie 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  significance of B of B 

message: Italian expeditionary force called Corpo Aereo Italiano, (Italian Air Corps) CAI, took part in the Battle of Britain from October 1940 to January 1941. It was formed from the 13th Bomber Wing (13o Stormo BT), 43rd Bomber Wing (43o Stormo BT), 56th Fighter Wing (56o Stormo CT) and 179th Recon Flight (179a Squadriglia). 
Kurt.
:I must admit that the Italian contribution is news to me.  While I don't dispute that it has its place in the article, I have rearranged things slightly to try to put the reference in a more suitable place.  I think this aspect could be expanded upon.  
:At the minute the entire article seems to be mostly from the Allied POV, especially the first part.  This makes it difficult to find a good place to mention the Italian contribution.  
:Finally, I am not sure that Italy should be listed under Combatants.  If they are, should not all the nations who fought with the RAF be on there as well?Mumby 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree we should respect the fallen, but I think that including them under 'Combatants' might confuse people who are new to the subject.  The sources I have managed to find put the date of Italian contribution as being from around the 10th of September onwards, which is long after the generally agreed date on which the BoB began (and the one referred to in the article).  In my opinion, a section on The Italian Contribution should probably be enough. Mumby 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian participation 

message: While I personally agree with most of the reasoning behind this article, many of the theories and opinions are not backed up by a quotation. There is also heavy converage of some nations, and not others. However, I would not like to see anything removed, just improved. Thank you. Wallie 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually met with Douglas Bader, Corustar. Good guy. He would have enjoyed your comment immensely. Wallie 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault maybe..I put that in.  It replaced a rather gushy and florid 'saving the world' rant.  I just used 'The Allies' to mean 'everybody'.  I couldn't say 'The British liberation of....', because (as a Brit) I am only too well aware of what we owe to those who crossed oceans to be there. ChrisRed 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a lot of citations and a tad POV 

message: There an understandable degree of duplication creeping into the article, i.e. we have three references to the nationalities of the Fighter Command pilots; unless anyone has any objections can I delete the text references, retaining the tabular data? Harryurz 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of data

message: I wish to know the significance of the term heinz beans... (etc..)
: Childish vandalism, now reverted. Shimbo 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Explain 

message: A good article and pretty well written.  But I have a problem with the structure.  The stuff about tactics, strategy (why are these separate?) and the 'Beams' rather gets in the way of the readability of the article and, in consequence, probably stops the average reader from even getting as far as the 'Aftermath' section.  Could those sections not be put in after the 'Aftermath' section so that the immediacy of the article is not lost?    (I'd do it myself only others are clearly already doing a good job on this article and so I'm disinclined to tamper).
Oh, and why are there two conflicting start dates in the first para.?  One being the 9th July and the other being the 10th July.  Perhaps these should be altered too?  Marcus22 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Re: Why is it, that altho New Zealand aparantly had the second highest numbers in battle, there is no deeper focus as with the other countries later down the article?
I'm not sure about this, unless it has something to do with NZ personnel being widely dispersed throughout the RAF and actual RNZAF units not arriving in Europe until after the Battle of Britain. Of course, there were notable Kiwis in the RAF, such as "Cobber" Kain and Air Vice-Marshal Sir Keith Park. 
:Answer. Because New Zealand doesn't matter, but Poland, Canada and the United States do. Much of the "history" in these articles is being written by wiki "military task forces" from these three countries. You will notice that Germany is not too well covered either. Wallie 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong Answer. Because no New Zelaender came and provided more info. For example, it's hard to expect from Pole that he will be inserting info about New Zealand, since this topic is hardly known in Poland. Szopen 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated before, some countries are more humble than others. As you say, Polish people would only mention other Poles, or their friends, i.e., Canadians and Americans. People from other (more humble) countries, mention all participants in a balanced way, irrespective of nationality. Wallie 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I suggest that the majority of the Foreign contribution section should be placed in a separate article as it generates a lot of controversy and its length is unbalancing the article, but I do not like to see acurate details being deleted.  A summary in this article, with a separate article where people can put details about the various country's contributions would solve this problem. Shimbo 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "accurate details" mean that certain countries who amde minor contributions have so few pilots, that each one's exploits are explained at length. The North American contribution to this Battle was minimal. Certainly there should be no mention of individual pilots, unless they did something special. But anyone reading this would think that it was significant. The truth is that mainly English pilots aided by a few from Scotland and Poland saved the day. Wallie 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Problem is that people will look at this and think the American contribution was "vast" complete with heroes and "Eagle Squadrons". Belgium's contribution was far larger, and they don't even rate a mention. Wallie 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split out Foreign Contribution Section?

message: In the intro the number is quoted as 2440, and in foreign contributions it's quoted as 2543. What's up?
Abaharaki 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British number inconsistent

message: This section needs a fairly substantial rewrite to correct spelling and grammer. I do not know if the facts presented are correct, but someone with knowledge about the subject should validate them. --Brat32 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it even belong? These aircraft may be worthy of mention in a BoB article, but this section jumps into technical areas that are already well covered in each plane's own article. I do think it'd be good to have a section dedicated to a (brief) description of the more common fighters and bombers engaged in the battle. --Spook Fruit 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Spitfire and BF-109

message: The section says of the Luftwaffe, "They employed the looser and more flexible four-ship 'Schwarme' developed in the Spanish Civil War". 'Schwarme' is probably meant to be the plural of 'Schwarm', which is German for "swarm" (surprise, surprise) — however, the plural involves an umlaut: 'Schwärme' is correct German. I don't want to change the article and have no historical reference, I'd just like to point you to this error (being a native speaker of German). SeL 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tis now... :) Wallie 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF tactics: <i>Schw[a/ä]rme</i> 

message: The subsection of this article, "Foreign Contributions", was split into a subarticle entitled Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution on 8/23/2006. Yunzhong Hou 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split: Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution 

message: The subsection of this article entailing various aircraft, was split into a subarticle entitled Battle of Britain Aircraft on 8/23/2006. Yunzhong Hou 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split: Battle of Britain Aircraft 

message: As we move further and further away from the events of 1940 the time may have come to put the Battle of Britain into proper historical perspective.  The heroism and sacrifice of the young pilots will, of course, never be forgotten; but the battle itself has less strategic significance than is usually assumed.  Above all it is important to understand that it was not the RAF that stopped a German invasion but the Royal Navy.  Any attempt to cross the Channel in the face of the massive superiority of the navy would have been military suicide.
White Guard 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgotten Heroes 

message: Has anyone got any thoughts on the group of links at the bottom of the page?  Who put them there?  Should we try to include a section on this debate in the article, at the moment it looks like it has been bolted on as an afterthought.Mumby 12:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mumby, it was me who put those links there (if it makes any difference). It was not an 'afterthought,' for this debate is very recent, and I've included in the Links section quite deliberately. If you'd like to try to write about the debate, you're welcome. I've just provided the material.—Barbatus 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think that was obvious from the article and putting the links at the bottom like that doesn't really do much for the quality of the article.  As soon as I have time I will try to put the links into some kind of context.  Does anybody else have an opinion on this?Mumby 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again: you're welcome to do it. This is exactly why I put those links there, so somebody with spare time will use 'em.—Barbatus 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The RAF of the Navy?" section at the bottom of the article

message: Stop doing so. Italy took part in the battle with one Air Corps. Corpo Aereo Italiano, (Italian Air Corps) CAI, took part in the Battle of Britain from October 1940 to January 1941. It was formed from the 13th Bomber Wing (13o Stormo BT), 43rd Bomber Wing (43o Stormo BT), 56th Fighter Wing (56o Stormo CT) and 179th Recon Flight (179a Squadriglia). The size (which is not that small) or overall effect of the Italian expeditionary force is not relevant. What is relevant is that Italy took part in the battle on German side. --Kurt Leyman 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information related to Italians is being vandalised 

message: More than one contributor has seen fit to add the flags of other nations to both sides in the 'Combatants' section of the infobox.  I always remove the flags but perhaps it is time to think about a better solution for the problem of how to represent the multinational nature of the forces on both sides, but particularly in the RAF.  The Battle of Britain page in other languages seems to have the same problem, with no consistency in which flags are displayed.  Unfortunately there is no equivalent to, for exapmle, the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War.  However, the latter article does have a bullet point combatant list, perhaps we could do this?  
Anyone got any better ideas?Mumby 10:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of adding the different combatants as a bullet point list, but maybe we should have a minimum number of pilots participating before a country is listed? Palestine for instance had one pilot involved, if we are to list all the countries with just a handfull of participants we'd have a long list, I'd imagine. (Not that I have no idea about the actual numbers involved tough). Maybe we should list the numbers of pilots all the nations listed had involved as well? Abel29a 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment.  I think I agree that the bulleted list is the best way to go, even though it was my idea.  Even including the countries which contributed just 1 pilot the list is not too long, so I think if we have it it should include all the nations. There is a good explanation of how many were from each nation at Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution so we might not want to repeat too much of that here.  The alternative is to add a note to the infobox saying something like  "including many combatants from other nations, see text of main article." or something like that.Mumby 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, after thinking some more about it, and looking at the foreign contribution article it wouldnt be to big to list all the participants in a numbered list. Adding a note with give any reader the necessary link, so yeah thats good. I say we simply do it - no need to postpone things is there :) (I've taken the liberty of copying your set up from the infobox here) - if somebody strongly disagrees, hey they can revert it. Abel29a 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Abel129a, I think this is the best solution to explaing a unique situation.  Hopefully people will discuss it here before reverting, but we will see! Mumby 10:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with combatants

message: Italy was a major power that fought against Britain with Germany. Same cannot be said about the countries that fought with Britain. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that.  According to the RAF museum website the Corpo Aereo Italiano flew 97 bomber and 113 fighter sorties, I don't see how this can be considered more notable than, for example, the USA's involvment or anybody elses.  Here is the link to the RAF museum website .  What I would really like to do is make a detailed entry on the Corpo Aereo Italiano at the Battle of Britain Foreign Contributions page, but I am yet to find a decent reference for any information (in English!).  Does such a small number of sorties warrant its own flag in the infobox?Mumby 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info Kurt.  That is a pretty good website, I want to track down some of the sources it quotes because I would rather cite them in an article than a website.  It seems to be that some of this information really needs to go into the Battle of Britain Foreign Contributions  page, at the moment it is very skewed toward the British side of things.  Maybe it even deserves its own page?  Either way, I would like to read a good, non-website, reference.  As for the film: most war films miss out a lot of important details, I could name several hundred!  I guess we won't be citing any movies as good references for this article! Mumby 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: I made a new article for this to avoid confusion. It was called "Adlertag" all over the place and was set to direct to Operation Adler which had 3 'Adler' operations in there. There are only a few basic details in the angriff article but if someone is feeling energetic they could maybe move over the sections appearing here, and free up some space for more details. Fluffy999 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Operation Eagle Attack|Unternehmen Adlerangriff]]

message: Seeing as the article gets vandalised several times every day now... Abel29a 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Mumby 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - someone just deleted the entire page. Darkmind1970 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - everyones time is being wasted monitoring idiocy --Sf 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've requested a semi-protect. Hopefully that'll deal with the issue Abel29a 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protect in order perhaps?

message: I corrected 
:"fought entirely in the air." 
to
:"fought entirely by air forces. (Sometimes called an entirely aerial battle, it depended on radar operators, controllers, and maintenance personnel on the ground.)"
We can argue sometime about the influence of airpower on WW1. I also corrected
:"developed in the Spanish Civil War"
to
:"rediscovered in the Spanish Civil War from principles dating to Boelcke in 1916,"
based on (I think) Denis Winter, First of the Few; I think Deighton's Fighter says something like it, too. Invention in the Spanish Civil War is a common myth. I corrected 
:"This led to the media belief the big wings were far more effective than they actually were."
The belief certainly wasn't limited to "media", or Bader & Leigh-Mallory, among others, wouldn't have been such staunch supporters. I corrected Me-110 "too fragile" to "too clumsy". I added "still running" to "still running the English Channel." Churchill said it was to demo British courage; anybody have a source? I also added
:"Moreover, there was never a systematic focus on any one type of target (airbases, radar station, aircraft factories), so the already haphazard effort was further diluted.Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?"
and
:"This is, in part, a reflection of the very novelty of the type of combat, as well as the control system. It was perfectly possible for Sector Control to have been assigned one frequency for all fighters to "listen out" on (or "guard", in modern parlance), with "roving" intercept guidance, rather than the close positive control used in the event, which limited controllers' ability to handle large numbers of interceptors.Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?."
and
:"Despite appearances, the Groups were not mutually supporting; Park, for instance, could not demand assistance from Quintin-Brand (from whom he often got it), nor from Leigh-Mallory (from whom he more often did not). This was because Dowding had never issued standing orders to assist, nor created a method to co-ordinate it.Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?"
and
:"(It would have had little tactical value in any case.)"
(based on Deighton, IIRC), and
:"Tactical flexibility was further hampered by Luftwaffe rejecting drop tanks for their 109s, despite them being available; unquestionably, many German fighter pilots drowned for lack of fuel who would not have.Deighton, Fighter."
and
:"these, often the least experienced men, were also often the first to die.Deighton, Fighter; Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?"
and
:"Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their precious Merlins to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?; Fitzsimons, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, "Defiant, Boulton Paul", Volume 7, p.712-4, and "Battle, Fairey", Volume 2, p.284-5."
and
:"This assertion ignores the ignoble fact Germany at the time had no armour piercing bomb capable of doing to a British cruiser (let alone a battleship) what Japan did to Prince of Wales."
and "to keep station." Re Defiant & Battles, I'd also add 
:"This was, to a degree, outside Dowding's authority; it was not outside Churchill's, but was not done."
but I can't think of a source that explicitly says "it wasn't done"; is that OR? I rewrote
:"above convoys of freighter vessels speeding through the English Channel."
as redundant & excessively hyperbolic; anybody who doesn't know can look up "convoy", & 6 knots is hardly "speeding". (More like race walking.) I deleted
:" and father of John F. Kennedy, the future President of the United States"
as too topical. Anybody who doesn't already know, & wants to, can use the link; that's what it's for. And finally, the article says
:"Neither Hitler nor the Wehrmacht believed it possible to carry out a successful amphibious assault on the British Isles until the RAF had been neutralised."
This view is mistaken; cf Deighton, Fighter, or Macksey, Hitler's Blunders. I'd add a comment, but I'm uncertain it fits the tone, & can't cite a source. I rely on  Trekphiler 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work there Trekphiler - I've asked for a GA review, hopefully we can push this puppy up the quality ladder quite smartly. Abel29a 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Glad to do it. Just, check the sources for footnoting. I don't have them handy. Also, crosscheck Luftwaffe; some of the same issues are dealt with there. (See the talk page, too; modesty forbids saying what you'll find...)  Trekphiler 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The times they are a'changin'

message: Quote- "Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their precious Merlins to be turned over to fighters and their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires.Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?; Fitzsimons, ed. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, "Defiant, Boulton Paul", Volume 7, p.712-4, and "Battle, Fairey", Volume 2, p.284-5."; This is a somewhat misleading, controversial and generally incorrect statement- the Defiant went onto night fighting, the Battles and their crews were held in hand for combating the predicted invasion. Further to that the huge increase in aircraft production meant there was no shortage of fighter aircraft or a need to swop Merlin engines from bombers to fighters. Using anything from the Allen book Who Won the Battle of Britain? as a legitimate reference source should be with considerable caution , as much of the 'factual' information is simply 'Dizzy' Allen's own, often flawed opinions. I request this misleading paragraph be removed if all in agreement. Thanks.Harryurz 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if one rewrote the sentence somewhat and added the fact that the planes were used for different roles? But I agree about the Merlin part, there were "never" a lack of planes, only trained pilots-- How would this work?: "Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of the Defiant and Fairey Battle, these were never retired and scrapped, allowing their their pilots (about three thousand in all) to be retrained on Hurricanes, thereby freeing large numbers of high-time, combat-experienced Hurricane pilots for Spitfires. Instead the Defiants saw action as night fighters, and the Battles were held ready to attack the German invasion fleet." At least it gives a reason for them not being scrapped. Abel29a 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading paragraph