Talk:Archie McKellar

Untitled
I've changed the birth year and place. I presume "1922" was merely a slip, otherwise McKellar would have been commissioned at the age of 14. His family moved from Paisley to Bearsden after his birth. I've also changed the reference to the roll of honour. He is not commemorated on the Royal Air Forces Memorial at Runnymede because this is for RAF personnel whose graves are unknown, nor at Westminster Abbey because the roll of honour there is for those who died during the official period of the battle. There is an interesting, if slightly inaccurate account of McKellar's career at.Mabzilla (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness, he missed the latter roll of honour by a mere two days (based on the dates in Wikipedia rather than the Milngavie Herald article). Too bad they weren't willing/able to extend the official period a tad to accommodate him.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or one day depending on which date in the article one accepts. The article gives both November 1 and 2 as the date of his death---which date is correct?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering he was the only British RAF pilot to achieve ace in a day status during the Battle of Britain, plus another 15 or 20 during the BOB, it is surely strange, indeed.Bugatti35racer (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

First brought down on mainland - but not first on British soil!

 * Dapi89 undid my corrections, but I am not in error. The Ju 88 shot down on 17 October 1939 DID crash on land in the island of Hoy, Orkney, so I am right to correct the article to say that McKellar's victory was the first to be brought down by the RAF onto British soil, albeit the first to be brought down onto mainland Britain by any means since WWI. I can cite several sources, but one I have in my hand right now is the personal, unpublished 'scribbling' diary of Major-General Geoffrey Kemp, OC of OSDef (Orkney and Shetland Defences). He visits the crash site the following day. Here is part of his entry for the 17 October 1939:

"one plane down on Hoy... one man had jumped in parachute."

And the following day, 18 October: "Went with T [Tuck] to Hoy to look at destroyed plane and collect information... Heather and peat still on fire round it. Bits scattered everywhere. Got a few identifications and found scattered remains of two bodies. Not nice."

In 'This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow' the author, W.S.Hewison, another eye witness, describes it thus: '''The Orkney gunners [226 Battery] engaged with all 8 4.5s... There is little doubt [that] the Orkney battery drew first blood although one of the destroyers also put in a claim. One of the bombers appeared to stagger slightly as shells burst around it,then, quite slowly it seemed, a wing dipped steeply, and trailing black smoke it plunged earthwards to crash on the banks of Pegal Burn in Hoy. Those of us at Stanger Head watched it go down..."''

Also recorded in several primary sources I have copied from The National Archives(mostly unit diaries, including that of 226 HAA Battery itself).Fine Hid (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Ju 88 shot down on the 16 October 1939 was the first on British territory.
 * It was also the first in British waters.
 * The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides.
 * According to my sources. Dapi89 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I still have to differ. Your sources are in error. As I have explained, my sources were eye witnesses, including the commanding officer of Orkney & Shetland Defences, Brig. (later Maj-Gen)G.C.Kemp himself, who visited the crash site the day after. I have numerous others I can send you - entries from War Diaries of units which also bore witness. Can supply images from those documents.
 * In your Talk above, you are saying the 16 Oct event "was the first on British territory", but that was into the sea - so here you are contradicting your own article, which quite rightly points out that it was the first in British waters - while you claim the one on the 28th was the first on British soil. Quite wrong.
 * As for this: "The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides." - if this refers to the downed aircraft in Orkney, perhaps you could show me on a map which 'river' flows through Orkney. How exactly would these 'parts' have washed ashore if the tides were 'shallow'? You've perhaps not experienced the tides in and around Orkney - some of the strongest and most turbulent currents in the world. Such powerful tides could have washed parts ashore, yes, but not while they were 'shallow'. Hard to see how these parts could have set fire to the heather by the side of the Pegal Burn as described by Kemp, as I quote above.
 * Furthermore, you say it is unacceptable to alter entries based on cited sources. Perhaps, unless the sources are deeply flawed, and by the citing of other, more reliable and contemporaneous accounts, can be shown to be so.
 * I won't revert to the correct version since you will just keep changing it back, but perhaps after consideration - and if I forward images from the unit War Diaries to you via email? - you might be convinced to concede.
 * This is such a well-known event in Orkney's wartime history. Maybe it is best if I just write a new article showing the evidence. I strongly recommend Hewison's "This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow", widely regarded as the best authority on Orkney's wartime history, written by a local man who served in Orkney during WWII, and witnessed the event. His and Kemp's version of events are backed up by other eye-witnesses.

Fine Hid (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't a contradiction. Waters are territorial.
 * Eye witnesses are not always reliable. I've crossed swords with some veterans of the Normandy campaign who will swear blind that there was a Tiger tank lurking around every corner and they know best because they saw it. Only we know that there were no such units in the vicinity. Are these images dated??
 * I didn't say a river flowed through Orkney. I said it crashed into the sea. Parts can be washed inshore while tides are shallow; why not?
 * It could have set fire to land in shore: it depends how the aircraft reacted to being struck. Bits and pieces fly everywhere when at height and speed.
 * Well, you haven't made an attempt to add citations yet. So that is the basis of the reversal. If you were to, then obviously a compromise is on the cards. Please add them in the style already there.
 * Understand I'm not fighting a corner. Just the insisting on the supremacy of sources. Dapi89 (talk)


 * "The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides."
 * Are these images dated? Yes, they are from diaries, as I quoted above. In Maj. Gen. Kemp's diary - he records the Ju 88 as coming down on Hoy on 17th, then visiting the still-burning crash site the following day, retrieves ID from the bodies, with one of his staff officers, Tuck.
 * Also mentioned in WO 166/1234 Orkney & Shetland Area & OSDef Diary:
 * "18 Oct : Brig. Kemp and Major Tuck inspected crashed German Plane and took identification of dead pilot and gunner."
 * I take your point that parts of the plane may have set fire to the heather. But it is clear from these accounts that the plane crashed on land, or at least the majority, with perhaps other fragments making it into the sea.
 * Another primary source (dare I say it again - another eye-witness) is Douglas Thomson's '226 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery 1939-1945: A personal account of the Caithness and Orkney Battery.' I don't know the original publication date of this book - although it is after 1984 - my copy is an undated reproduction by Herald Printshop, Kirkwall, of the original publication. Here's Thomson's version of events:
 * "Number one gun claimed a direct hit on the leading plane, a JU88 [sic]. It burst into flames passing over us at about 200 feet. One German airman was seen to get out of the plane. His parachute opened and he landed half a mile above our gunsite. Some spare gunners were ordered to get 303 rifles and capture the airman - they were warned he may be armed. This German was the first to be captured on British soil, so we did not know what to expect... He was a huge man, spoke good English saying, "Hitler shall be in Britain by Christmas!" The bomber crashed on the banks of Pegal Burn - the rest of the crew were all killed and our unit had the job of finding the bodies... The wreckage was searched and some of the documents were still intact. A chart of Scapa Flow was found and our two gunsites clearly marked showing their positions... There is now a lay-by and picnic site at the Pegal Burn. The Army erected a plinth in 1984 with the Royal Artillery badge to commemorate the shooting down of the first German plane to crash on British soil."
 * So that's the accounts of the Officer Commanding OSDef (Orkney & Shetland Defences) visiting the crash site on 18 Oct and recording it in his personal diary, the entries for the day it happened and the following day in WO 166/1234 Orkney & Shetland Area & OSDef Diary 1939-40, an eye-witness account by a gunner from the battery that shot it down and the account by Hewison, another eye-witness, in 'This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow'.
 * I agree that eye-witness accounts can occasionally fly in the face of establishable fact. But I don't think this line-up of witnesses can be regarded as unreliable.
 * I am intrigued by the sources you cite. What exactly do they say about the event?

Fine Hid (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still keen to hear what your sources tell you. Meanwhile, while researching on another topic, I found another primary source referring to the plane coming down on Hoy. This is from WO 166/2055 OSDef Adjutant & Quartermaster Branch War Diary:
 * "17/10/39 Fair, wind light. 1020 Air Raid on Scapa Flow. H.M.S. "Iron Duke" bombed and damaged. One plane shot down and landed on Hoy."

Fine Hid (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Still VERY keen. Can you please tell me exactly what your sources say about the 17 October attack on Scapa Flow? Not worried anymore if you can't accept the eye-witness accounts and primary sources, but would like to hear more detail about the attack. Fine Hid (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Having studied this topic extensively, as well as having read Wikipedia's various guidelines for sources, I can say that most all accounts of this early period of the War dismiss the Oct. 17 incident in the outer isles as a plane crash. No intent here to offend anybody.  Just because a ground unit was firing AA does not mean that they hit it.  In those early days there was no investigative units yet in existence to go inspect the wreckage and look for conclusive evidence the British ground unit's AA munitions brought it down.  A diary and personal accounts of the incident would mean nothing without an official inspection of the wreckage by an official inspection team--which did not yet exist.  Also, consider the confusion at the War Dept. concerning categorizing an enemy plane that crashed on the tides edge! Consider Archie MacKellar's first two kills during this period did not go to anybody involved because rules had not yet been set up about such things.  Had they occurred later, he and others involved would have gotten credit because enough pilot witnesses and watchers on ground, sea, that were not involved were present to backup the claims and convey the kills to those where credit was due; but at the time, once again, no rules.  The October 17 incident, and the various attacks going on around Scapa Flow, Scottish shipyards and towns, etc. are an important part of WW2 History.  They should be discussed.  Probably not here, on Archie's talk page, though. Although both the Oct 17 incident and the treatment of McKellar on (not on original) Roll of Honor do both show that odd complex the English have about themselves in regards to The Scots.Bugatti35racer (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

IP editions
There has been an awful lot of poor editing since June. I've taken it all out. No citations for some things, other information and citations changed. Google books linked from inadequate sources and badly written prose & presentation. Dapi89 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dapi89 has been citing claimed minor errors of references, etc. as an excuse to eliminate vast expanses of this article repeatedly over years. If Dapi89 wishes to eliminate something with no reference he can do it, one at a time so merits of each can be examined, but not by his slash and burn editing style to make his Nazi hero's appear great by making each anti-nazi hero appear as a "lucky amateur" which is his stated intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugatti35racer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)