Talk:Operation Bodenplatte/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Hello,

My name is David and I am writing a book about Operation Bodenplatte. I would love hearing from anyone in this forum about the operation, and I seek veterans of this conflict or anyone with first or second-hand information to speak up. Cordially, David

Please see WP:FORUM

--- As per the German Wiki and other sources I beleive Operation Hermann should be copied into the Operation Bodenplatte article, and this page be made an redirect. I will do so within the next day or so unless there are protests. Abel29a 23:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Formating

Added three infoboxes to the article, and now the edit buttons for three of the headlines are placed on top op the table(at least in Opera 9.02.) My Wiki-Fu is not yet strong enough to fix this - anybody know how to properly code this thing? Abel29a 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Name and terminology

I have moved the article for two reasons: (1) "Operation Bodenplatte" is Denglish rather than a correct English or German name. (2) The common translation is "Operation Baseplate" (refer Google search), rather than "Ground Plate". I have also cleaned up some of the terminology, into the correct British and US military forms. Regards, Grant | Talk 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I didn't even think about this when I was working on the article Abel29a 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, just corrected a translation error: mäßig (as stated in the german wiki) = moderate, medium. Not Massiv. In the german wiki the terminology was critisised for not beeing suitable in connection with destruction. Also it would be to vague to be used in an encyclpedia. However, the author of the source, Werner Girbig (Start im Morgengrauen), used just this terminology in his extentensivly researched book. The term medium destruction will probably is more neutral.

On the issue of Operation vs. Unternehmen (directly translates as untertaking) I fully agree with the editors. While Unternehmen is suitable for the majority of operations of the german wehrmacht during WW2 (like Unternehmen Taifun, Unternehmen Barbarossa, Unternehmen Zitadelle etc.), the term Operation seems to fit for most of the allied undertakings (!?).

To make things interesting, the german wehrmacht used the codeword Fall (case) for some of their operations, like Fall Gelb for what was commonly called Westfeldzug, the term Feldzug describing a limited military operation within a greater war (the closest english term I can think of is raid). Fall Weiß=Polenfeldzug, Fall Rot=Frankreichfeldzug, Fall Blau=Kaukasusfeldzug. The Fall+Color coding got somewhat mixed up when Fall Barbarossa and Unternehmen Barbarossa was both used for the attack on the soviet union in 1941. The Fall Blau in 1942 was the last operation using the color coding that I know of. The transition can be seen in the chronolgy: mid 1941 Fall/Unternehmen Barbarossa, end 1941 Unternehmen Taifun (moskow), early 1942 Fall Blau (for the last time), from there on only Unternehmen + codeword (no color).

As for Galland, I would like to point out that he was removed from his position as supreme commander of the day-fighters in early 1945, but kept his rank as Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General US, respectivly Air Marshall RAF). He returned to activ combat duty on own will and was given command of the most famous jetfighter unit of the war, the Jagdverband 44. Reading the article one may think he was degraded, which was not the case. Just for info, best regards and thanks for noting,--Greenx 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ranks

I notice that ranks of equivalent air forces are added in brackets in the main text. I think this clutters up the main text. If a reader wants to know more, they simpy have to click on the links provided (I note also that the equivalent ranks are listed in those articles anyway). Agreed? Dapi89 (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The original version of the paragraph was even more confusing, the Allied ranks weren't accurate and there wasn't a footnote explaining the differences between Luftwaffe positions and Allied ranks (not everyone is going to bother to look at the Wiki articles on the Geshwaderkommodore etc). I adjusted the paragraph accordingly. However, I think it clutters up the text, although the footnote should probably stay.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Allied aircraft lost.

Looking good, apart from two things: Flg. Off. Fraser of 439 Squadron RCAF was not shot down; the official 439 Sqn log and the "Unofficial Squadron History" http://www.rcaf.com/439squadron/TIGER/439Hist_e-95.htm show that the only aircraft of the unit lost in the air was that of Flg. Off. Angelini. In fact Fraser claimed two German aircraft, more than likely from JG 3.

Second, I doubt if the rank for David Johnson of 366 FG was Flying Officer, unless he was seconded from the RAF. Worth checking on. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Start Class?

I think the detail on this article deserves more than a start class classification. Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Revamp

Two years or so ago, myself and another user put some effort into drawing up the loss tables. But given their capacity to eat up space, I suggest they be moved (the German ones) to the Geschwader articles. Or, I guess setting up a 'Bodenplatte losses' article would be in order. The space is need for a planned revamp. Dapi89 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about simply collapsing them? (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that kill kb useage? Dapi89 (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. However, the main reason for article length guidelines for readable prose, is to prevent the reader getting bogged down, which this achieves - while keeping the information quickly accessible for those that want it. (Hohum ^@) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So in theory, it could be 150, and still get GA? Dapi89 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That probably depends on the reviewers. If they need it removed, it's a simple cut. (Hohum ^@) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

To kill kbs, does anyone think it is a good idea to move the Casualties text to the main article? Dapi89 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

1. Book references are missing publishing locations
2. Images with missing Non-free media use rationale: [File:Heinrich Bär.jpg], [File:Helmut Bennemann.jpg], [File:Siegfried Freytag.jpg] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay Jim. Do you have any other concerns? Does everything else seem okay? I think I've covered all other aspects of the operation in concise and sufficient enough detail (considering the space restrictions). Dapi89 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No I just had a quick read but nothing else jumped out. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions

Some further suggestions, the title has started to concern me. Of course not that much that it would prevent it reaching GA class.

• I was looking at the Unternehmen part being the English WIKI should it not be Operation Bodenplatte the only other example I could think of was the Japanese Operation U-Go which uses the English Operation. If Operation Bodenplatte was used we could get rid of the translations which are a bit awkward not being an exact translation.
• In the lede to allow the German Army (German: Heer) should be changed to German Armed Forces/German land forces/German divisions, as the Waffen SS were a large part of the operation and are not part of the Heer. The exact term would need some considerations to best fit.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the changes but it sort of seemed like the consensus in the above section was against using the English. I guess we'll see if anyone objects. delldot ∇. 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Delldot. I think this was just the case for the written article, not article names. Admins tend to do internet searches for thos most common search name - this tends to "Operation", even for German operations. I just wanted to comply quickly so it did not slow anything down even further. Dapi89 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with it if everyone else is. delldot ∇. 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another comment

My buddy called me back the other day with another suggestion. He thinks the article makes clear that the operation was a tactical success but a strategic blunder because the Allies were able to replace their losses quickly. But he thinks you need to stress more the fact that the operation was supposed to have been an integral part of the Battle of the Bulge, but the weather prevented it. He says to say that the Battle of the Bulge was pretty much over by the time the operation was launched. The Germans had gotten what they wanted: the weather prevented Air support for the battle. After the weather cleared up the Germans failed to reconsider whether Bodenplatte was still a good idea. So he just feels like this lack of planning should be stressed more. He's sort of saying that it's a mistake to say it was a blunder because the allies were able to replace their losses quickly--really he feels like it was a blunder in planning even without that. delldot ∇. 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Delldot. There isn't much to say on the purpose of the operation other than to say it was intended to achieve air superiority so the SS could sprint to Antwerp. I believe the plan and background section covers this. The literature doesn't have much more than a few lines in this regard - simply because there wasn't much thought given to the plan (in fact having a section called "the plan" is quite ironic).

I'm not sure I agree that the BoB was over by 1 January - from which sides perspective? Certainly not the Germans. The break in the weather was a problem, but once it had cleared up they were already committed to the operation. Failing to try Bodenplatte (as far as Wacht am Rhine was concerned) was not really an option as it would concede defeat on the Western Front.

Re blunder, again I am not sure. Very few operations in military history are just about destroying more than the losses you receive (for example army operations). However, in aviation terms, this is the case. The operation was a failure because the losses were pyrrhic – great success won as too costly a price. Married to non-existent planning = big blunder. If you like I could copyedit and pad out the planning section and clarify the point in my reply a bit more if you’d prefer. Bodenplatte was not a blunder because it was launched , it was a blunder because of poor/brief planning. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my buddy will just disagree with your analysis, but let me get back to him and let you know what he says. I think whatever you decide to do will be fine. He can always come up with a source of his own that supports his point if he feels strongly about it, but he probably won't. delldot ∇. 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you it is based on sound consideration, if one looks at the bigger picture! But just to add – if one argues that operation should never have taken place, it ignores the predicament the Germans were in. Stopping concedes total defeat, continuing may cost more casualties, but may offer a glimmer of hope no matter how small. Had it been planned more thoroughly and if its units had been thoroughly trained in Ground-attack tactics (which was still possible to do, even via the use of ground instruction only) then the Luftwaffe may have achieved great success at acceptable losses. In short the Germans had reached the point of no return, and it was better to take the gamble. I think that the OKW and OKL had little choice in the matter. Something had to be done…fast. Dapi89 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Airfield burning.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Airfield burning.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

in 2013...Article sources: first-person accounts of combat during Bodenplatte, excerpted from memoirs?

I am interested in Bodenplatte and Luftwaffe fighter operations in general. Am presently reading the Manrho/Pütz book, Bodenplatte The Luftwaffe's Last Hope, but would like to know what other contributors can recommend wrt memoirs or biographies of Luftwaffe fighter pilots who saw combat during Bodenplatte? They could be good sources of info for this article, not to mention interesting reading. I got Manrho/Pütz book specifically b/c it was an overview, but am really missing the first-person I-was-there style, and would really like to find that for Bodenplatte, from the German perspective as I know I'll be keen to add to this article from whatever I read. So, are then any memoirs/biographies of Luftwaffe fighter pilots who saw combat during Bodenplatte that you editors can recommend? To a lesser degree I am interested and willing to contribute material from the American perspective, and will accept recommendations for the same kind of texts from Allied fliers, but I dream of flying in a Ta 152H, not a P-51D, if I could only fly in one! Thanks! Azx2 04:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

would anyone object (convincingly) to the setting-up of automatic archiving of this talk page? and if not, what time interval should we use for inactive threads before they're archived? 90 days? 60 days? Thanks. Azx2 04:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External Links - had to remove one and couldn't find it archived on the Wayback Machine

I had to remove one of the external links, which was dead, and not available via Wayback Machine. For those who are interested, I did find [www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1195410175/1196350909 this link] to the first page of article text tho...

OPERATION BODENPLATTE Flight Journal, Feb 2005 by Busha, James P A LUFTWAFFE DISASTER

"THE HARSH WEATHER THAT DESCENDED ON THE SCATTERED ALLIED lines stretched thinly across the Ardennes Forest in mid-December 1944 was a bittersweet triumph for Adolf Hitler. Although his ground troops used the horrible weather to their advantage, concealing buildups for their eventual forward thrust into the overwhelmed GIs, his once vaulted, "blitzkrieging" Luftwaffe sat helpless on the fog-covered frozen ground as the Battle of the Bulge commenced. The original plan, code-named Wacht am Rhein (watch on the Rhine), called for coordinated ground and air attacks to cripple and destroy the Allied air power that had recently decimated the Luftwaffe. If this could be accomplished, the Allied ground push toward Germany would be halted, and without protective air cover, the Allies would be forced to the Channel. It was all wishful thinking on Hitler's part. He lived by the sword, and now he was about to die by it. He had to wait for something he had no control over: clear weather. By the time the fog and low clouds had lifted, the Germans were retreating with the Allied armies hot on their heels. As the new year approached, Hitler used his final trump card and unleashed more than 800 of his Luftwaffe fighters in a frantic act to save his homeland and himself.

Operation Bodenplatte (ground plate) was a desperate attempt by a desperate man to change the course of the War. Convinced of their ultimate overwhelming success, Luftwaffe planners and pilots prepared for what they hoped would be their victorious start to the new year: a surprise attack by German fighters on Allied airfields in western Europe.

Here are the stories of two fighter pilots who were there - one German and one American.

by Feldwebel Oscar Boesch, Sturmnstaffel 1 JG 3 Udet

I had just flown my last mission of the year: a support sweep for our ground troops fighting in the Bulge area. Our Fw 190s had earned their keep once again, as evidenced by our blackened gun ports when we Staffel (squadron) pilots taxied in and shut down. As we entered the operations building, thoughts of celebrating on this New Year's Eve were short-lived.

"By order of the Geschwaderstab (commander), the pilots of Geschwader IV JG 3 Udet are restricted to base without alcohol or party and are to be in bed by 10 p.m. Do not talk to anyone, as a very important mission is planned for early tomorrow morning. Happy New Year, German fighter pilots! Dismissed!"

January 1, 1945. Our wake-up call came at 5:30 a.m. A top-secret mission, Operation Bodenplatte was laid out for us at the morning briefing. We pilots studied detailed maps of our route and target area-Eindhoven air base in Holland-and listened to last-minute instructions before we made the short walk to our Fw 190s.

I was surprised at how calm I felt and was somewhat refreshed knowing that it was now our turn to attack Allied aircraft that we hoped would still be on the ground. At last, I thought, some payback, and our day for revenge against the bothersome Allied escort fighters. They referred to us as "targets of opportunity," when they left their bombers and dropped to come looking for us. We were always out-numbered as we took our daily beatings.

Every day we endured attacks by Mustangs, Spitfires, Lightnings, Thunderbolts and Typhoons. They shot up everything they saw; even a man on a bicycle was not safe on the streets! As I strapped myself into the 190, I believed that this important mission would bring a much-needed reprieve from Allied superiority on the Western Front. I also understood, however, that if this mission failed, it would spell disaster for all of us and would mean the tactical end of the Luftwaffe.

Shortly after 8:20 a.m., our Staffel of 19 Fw 190s quickly lifted off from the snow-covered field at Gütersloh and disappeared into the western sky. We quickly rendezvoused with the rest of Geschwader Udet near Lippstadt and formed up with other 190s to become a strike force of 60 Fw 190s. To avoid detection by enemy radar, our flight level was on the deck; we flew between chimneys and around church steeples.

Leading us to Eindhoven was our "Mother Goose"-a Ju 88 that did all of the navigating and communicating; radio silence was mandatory until we reached the target. With good visibility and flat terrain, we flew over the frontlines undetected by antiaircraft guns. Fifty kilometers behind Allied lines, we dropped our belly tanks and charged our guns, and I tightened my straps as Eindhoven air base came into view.

In front of us was a huge parking lot filled with Spitfires and Typhoons. Hundreds of Allied aircraft were right before my eyes, and this time, they were all on the ground! I saw four Spitfires being fueled, and I aimed for the one in the center as my cannon rounds tore into them. Huge explosions ripped the Spitfires apart, and they all began to burn. Below me were black and red fireballs where Allied aircraft had once sat.

Cannon shells zipped through the snow and mud into burning aircraft as the base was chewed to bits by our Fw 190s. I made pass after pass on the fully engulfed field and saw Typhoons and Spitfires trying to taxi through the chaos. Other Fw 190s sealed their fate: their cannon shells found their marks and ignited the fighters before they could get airborne. Heavy antiaircraft fire arched in my direction as the British defensive gunners retaliated. It was like flying in a damn hornets' nest because tracer rounds flew everywhere! OPERATION BODENPLATTE Flight Journal, Feb 2005 by Busha, James P << Page 1 Continued from page 1. Previous | Next

On my fourth and last pass over Eindhoven, I ran out of machinegun ammo and my cannon jammed. I was just above the treetops when the fires from the burning aircraft threw thick black clouds of oily smoke into the air and completely limited my visibility. Suddenly, out of the smoke and haze, came a fellow Fw 190 right in front of my nose! A fraction of a second sooner, and we would have collided. That's when I thought, "Oh boy, it's dangerous; time to get the hell out of here!"

With my cannon still jammed and my machine guns out of ammo, it was time for me to leave. On the deck at full throttle, I turned east for home. Like so often after a battle, I was alone. About five minutes flying time from Eindhoven, I saw a low-flying aircraft ahead and thought it was an Fw 190. As I closed on my newfound wingman, a chill ran up my spine: this was no 190; this was a hostile Typhoon!

I was right behind him just 100 feet away and, luckily for me, right in his blind spot. The Typhoon was one of the Luftwaffe's most hated and feared Allied aircraft. It had done so much damage to our ground units, particularly our armor. It was fast, and when heavily loaded with rockets, it turned our tanks into Swiss cheese. I recharged my jammed cannon and got a green light!

The Typhoon made a 30-degree turn to the left, and I stayed with him but out of sight. I had him bull's-eyed in my gunsight, and at this close range, how could I miss? I pulled the trigger on the 30mm cannon and hoped he would fall. I squeezed the trigger again and again. Nothing! The only thing that worked was that damn green light!

Advertisement I was 50 kilometers behind enemy lines on the tail of a ferocious tiger. He had superior speed and firepower and, probably, lots of ammunition. Had I been over Germany, I might have rammed him or chewed off his tail, but over his lines, I had no chance to survive a tangle with him. The Typhoon went into another turn, and I followed him through it, still unnoticed. I had a 10-second window of opportunity to leave before I'd become a victim.

I carefully maneuvered myself out of harm's way and eliminated the Typhoon pilot's golden opportunity to get an easy kill. I now wish I knew his name so I could let him know how he and I got away; then we could both celebrate!

There was no celebrating when I returned to Gütersloh. The news was bad. Luftwaffe losses were colossal: 211 pilots and more than 300 aircraft lost. The damage we had inflicted seemed minimal in proportion to our losses. This was the Luftwaffe's final large-scale operation on the Western Front, but we held out for as long as we could. May was only four months away, and it came very quickly..."

Unfortunately the forum in which this was posted has the same dead link to the main article as the one I just removed from this article here. Cheers. Azx2 06:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Was it really a tactical German victory, be it Pyrrhic?

Is there a consensus to evaluate the operation as an at least Pyrrhic tactical German victory? It is not even certain that the Allies lost more aircraft, but even taken that for granted, the Germans definitely lost a multiple of airmen. I'd judge that, at best from a German point of view, as "tactically inconclusive". --KnightMove (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion all the time. Result/outcomes on military articles are subjected to endless, and sometimes needless, arguments and or debates. As long as we have sources and those sources do not conflict, there is no issue and we have consensus.

But more to the point, the article does not use the term "victory". The word carries with it certain connotations that did/do not fit with the circumstances. The sources assert Pyrrhic Tactical Success - immediate tactical success for a raid but not to the extent that it altered, tactically or otherwise, the overall situation in the air as a whole on that day or thereafter in the German favour. Hence the word victory is excluded. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Polish Air Force units

...should not be credited in the combatant box. They were not fully independent units. They were always subordinate to the RAF. The fact that they were (may have been) answerable to the Polish government in exile is irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

??The Poles were proud to serve in the RAF, they served heroically and well (in spite of which treated extremely badly post war by a government who wanted to stay cosy with "Uncle Joe"), they were combatants, the airfield on which their units were based was a target, so what's the problem?Minorhistorian (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your missing the point. That is completely irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was I that changed it. For a similar case, see the intro and battlebox in Invasion of Normandy. The "problem" is Polish airmen were officially recognised by the RAF as members of a separate air force. See Polish_Air_Forces_in_France_and_Great_Britain#History:

Initially the Polish airmen were compelled to wear British uniforms, fly British flags and pass two oaths, one to the Polish government and the other to King George VI of the United Kingdom. However, after the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk and the arrival of hundreds of Polish airmen from France, the situation changed. On August 5, 1940, the British government finally accepted the Polish Air Force as a sovereign, allied military formation. From then on the airmen were part of the Polish Army, flying their own standards and wearing British uniforms but with Polish rank insignia. Although still subordinate to British command, the Polish units were directly subordinate to a Polish inspector of the Air Forces, who in turn was responsible to the Polish government.

I think the logic is inescapable. And on further reflection, I think it is clear that — as well as Poland — Canada and New Zealand should be listed here as well, since the RCAF and RNZAF participated, in the form of units of other sovereign countries, under RAF operational control. (Whereas, in this instance, Australian/RAAF units did not.) Regards, Grant 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with logic. My problem is that there isn't a single citation on that page that indicates the P.A.Fs were indeed given sovereignty. The "citationless" text also mentions that they were answerable to the RAF, as they flew RAF machines, in RAF units. It appears they only had minimal autonomy. I wanted proper accreditation, that's all. Dapi89 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Alfred Peszke appears to be the leading authority regarding the agreement of August 5, 1940 (and note the significance of that date). Here are two articles by him that support the above interpretation:

• "An Introduction to English-Language Literature on the Polish Armed Forces in World War II" The Journal of Military History v70, n4 (Oct. 2006), pp. 1029-1064.
• "A Synopsis of Polish-Allied Military Agreements During World War Two" Military Affairs, v 44, n3 (Oct. 1980), pp. 128-134.

Grant 13:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it you found these on JSTOR? Fair enough. Then please add the proper reference Grant, it appears the entry was legitimate. Dapi89 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean; I was working under a mistaken impression, apologies for that. The article does need some references and citation to indicate where the information comes from. I forgot to show a reference for the section about Galland being sacked then reinstated, so I'll add that.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By way of background, several months ago I was sceptical regarding the claims of Polish sovereignty in 1940-45, until I checked this for myself. I don't have access to online subscriptions or ready access to the paper journals for the next few weeks. Regards, Grant 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I do, so I'll "wack 'em in". Dapi89 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Grant 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally at the time all Polish units would have been described and considered as 'Polish units of the RAF'.

Because Poland surrendered in 1939 and had thereafter what the Germans considered a 'legitimate' government this meant that Poles fighting alongside the Allies could be legally considered 'traitors' by the Germans and so could be denied the protection of the Geneva Convention. So all Polish units had to be 'RAF units' first, Polish second. This also applied to Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Czechs, Free French, etc., So although they wore their own uniforms, and were nominally in their own respective air forces, they were in fact, all RAF personnel - which is why al these personnel when captured were held by the Germans in prisoner of war camps alongside the British. Their respective air force's countries having surrendered they were no longer considered legitimate fighting forces by the Nazis and so could all have theoretically been executed or put in concentration camps if captured.

You see, once these countries had surrendered, the surrender terms almost always included a clause that the armed forces of the conquered state lay down their arms and cease fighting the victor. Failing to do this renders the persons concerned as having disobeyed lawful orders and therefore denies them the protection of the Geneva Convention if they are later captured. That means the captor doesn't have to consider them legitimate prisoners of war and can (theoretically) do what they like with them. In practice, that meant that any person from any of these states captured while fighting German forces would be handed over to the Gestapo or SS instead of being sent to a Luftwaffe POW camp. This is also usually what happened to British SOE agents caught in civilian clothes, several of whom ended up in Dachau and Ravensbrück. So the legal niceties of who you were actually fighting for had some importance at the time.

That's why all RAF squadrons with personnel made up from the occupied countries had 'No XXX (Polish) Squadron' or 'No XX (Norwegian) Squadron' in their official titles. That way they had the legal protection of fighting for what the Germans regarded as a legal combatant, i.e, the British.

BTW, the Polish government-in-exile in London wasn't recognised by Germany, so Poles fighting outside nominally British and other Allied units had no recognised legal status with the Germans. This also applied to the other occupied countries.

IIRC, the problem of what would happen to personnel from the occupied countries if shot down and captured had not occurred prior to around 1941-42, from then on the RAF started flying offensive 'Rhubarb' and 'Ranger' patrols over occupied France and the possibility of capture became real. For a time prior to this Poles (and Czechs) who might have to fly over France from stations in the UK had been given British citizenship to protect them if shot down. That's why so many Poles in the RAF were able to remain in the UK after the war's end in 1945.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

German / English naming

I notice there is discussion above, and some article edits surrounding the use of German or English equivalent names for units in this article.

I believe that the as long as the initial use of the German term includes a translation, it would be better to generally use the German terminology throughout the rest of the article. This will instantly differentiate Allied fighter groups and German ones. (Hohum ^@) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked how milhist FAs do it before going through and changing it. My reviewing buddy and I both felt like the German made the article denser and harder to get through. Also with some, I was changing them to be in accordance with the articles' titles, which were in English. But I'm not super concerned either way, we should go with whatever the convention is per MOS. delldot ∇. 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI the guidlines are at WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME and WP:WikiProject_Military_history/German_military_history_task_force#Naming_conventions. Although they are focused mainly on article names, not use within the article. I think the relevant questions are: Will converting to English cause any confusion with similarly designated Allied units present? If so, would using the full disambiguator "_(Germany)" be messy. What style do the English language historical references for the battle tend to use? - we should be consistent with them to avoid confusing readers who want investigate further. (Hohum ^@) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

When editing list of military aircraft accidents, I kind of like to use the rule of thumb, as much is reasonable, use the terminology appropriate to the originating country / language. For South American accidents its different than for Greek or German or the myriad former Soviets... Since Bodenplatte is at heart, a German undertaking, let their terminology prevail. Maybe the readers who thinks it slows it down a bit will get exposed to the German language for a few minutes... Mark Sublette (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about a style guideline here, actually, it's WP:UE, which is policy, so we don't have a lot of wiggle-room (unless you want to go debate and change the policy): "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." It's a hard question that is generally attacked by wading through Google searches and through a lot of sources, seeing whether English-language sources tend to prefer the German or the English term, and sometimes the results are inconsistent: at WP:SHIPS, we've found more hits for "Germany Imperial Navy" than for "Kaiserliche Marine", but more hits for "Reichsmarine" than for various English names for the German navy in the interwar years. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, a quick search shows a lot more support in English sources for "Unternehmen Bodenplatte" than for either of the two translations we give, so we've got the right article title. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UE is article title policy, not content. (Hohum ^@) 01:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was called "Naming conventions" until recently. We finally decided to focus the specific advice of the page on what to put in an article title, because that leads to fewer squabbles, but more often than not, the word that makes the most sense in the title also makes the most sense in the text, for the same reasons (although judgment and knowledge of common exceptions is required). - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All these impotent little war lovers are Nazi jock sniffers and fantasize about being a Nazi and thus love the use of Nazi/German language in English articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.162.1 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My math is a little rusty, can someone explain this?

The last paragraph in the Volkel and Heesch section seems a little off, especially the last sentence, but maybe it's just my math.

"As well as Kogel, three of the two Gruppenkommandeure and three Staffelkapitane were lost.[57]"

A couple of things seem to be off:

• "Three of the two Gruppenkomandeure"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an impossible number? All the other sources I googled show only 1 was killed that day.
• Kogel was not the Geschwaderkommodore of KG6, there is no record of a Kogel in the unit, every source I've seen says Kogler. also:
• Half the paragraph refers to KG6, a former bomber unit converting to fighters, and not a part of JG6. KG6 was stationed in Prague at the point of time in question, re-equipping with fighters.

Does anyone have access to the sources cited to gather more background information? With all the glaring faults mentioned above, if the source cited actually states that, it might need to be revisited.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at the list of all the pilots killed, captured and wounded.

• Four Gruppenkomandeure were shot down in total
• Johann Kogler was the AOC of JG 6.
• It said KG 6 it was meant to be JG 6

. Dapi89 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)