Talk:BOAC Flight 777

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilzelayaa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Good work
Nice job editors. This is a great "new" article. jengod 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Very impressive for a DYK article. Nice work Modest Genius talk 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunderland ace
a short sunderland shooting down 6 ju88s deserves a page of its' own. Midnite lamp 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - seems extremely unlikely. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ju88 photo
The photo is of a bomber variant. Can we find a decent picture of a fighter variant, or ideally establish the type involved in the attack? Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Stick a fork in it
Was this the same DC-3 carrying the P-38 dive flaps? Trekphiler (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Spy Speculation
I removed the paragraph on speculation about spies on the plane. The information is still in the introduction section. It was also only one sentence long. Tc.bongers (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Stonehouse
I suggest merging Kenneth Stonehouse here. This journalist fails WP:BIO on his own, and is chiefly mentioned as one of the victims of this flight. I redirected the article here, but that was opposed, so I suggest merging anything worth keeping and then redirecting it here. Fram (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose – In my opinion, this merger proposal is part of the problem of Recentism on Wikipedia (see:Recentism ), whereby older subjects that are not easily found on the internet are not well covered and editors call for their deletion, or in this case, deletion by merger. Kenneth Stonehouse was the bureau chief of the Reuters news agency in Washington, D.C. in 1942-43 at the height of the Second World War. Not only was his job notable, but he was covering what might be called the most notable event in the 20th century. Previously he had worked for the Cape Times and the South African Morning Newspaper, and thus he had a lengthy career in his field. In his proposed merger of the Kenneth Stone house article with the BOAC Flight 777 page Fram cites the Notability (people) rule, but does not mention any specific segments of the rule that he/she thinks are reason for getting rid of the Kenneth Stonehouse article.  Fram originally merged the two pages, and it must be noted did so without any discussion, because he/she belied that Stonehouse “isn't notable individually, just as a passenger on that notable flight” . I believe that I have established that Kenneth Stonehouse was not just a passenger on BOAC Flight 777, but someone of notability outside of  the event that lead to his death. David Straub (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not produced any independent secondary sources that discuss Stonehouse outside the crash. The only site to discuss him at length is a site from Reuters, his employer. The other sources, like the Ottawa Citizen and the Southeast Missourian, just list him and his last occupation, without any expansion, indicating that he was not notable at the time. This has nothing to do with recentism, we don't create separate articles for plane crashes happening now either. Fram (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Fram, you're making up rules on the fly. There is nothing that says a wikipedia article cannot include obituary materials and there is nothing in the notability rules page that you cite that states that materials need to be published before the death of an individual. The evidence provided support the fact that Stonehouse was a person of notability, i.e., that he was the bureau chief of Reuters in Washington and was an established journalist who was covering the most notable event of the 20th century - WWII. David Straub (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those make him notable at all. There were thousands of journalists covering WWII, certainly when you include people covering it from Washington and so on, like he did. Being the bureau chief of Reuters in Washington is not an inherently notable position. Just check WP:BIO, it has been around for years. The arguments you use are irrelevant: what we need are significant reliable independent sources about the person. The only things you have provided so far are one significant but not independent source (the Reuters employees page), and a number of insignificant passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is circular and ridiculous. Having a position of notability is not notable because it has been around for many years and many people have filled that position? Are you kidding me? And it is clever how you dismiss the New York Times and the Times of London as not "significant" sources. And again, you cite WP:BIO as the source of your argument without actually citing a single example from the policy as to why it applies to this case. And your are the one who is quibbling on sources. David Straub (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's up to you how he meets WP:BIO. I can't prove a negative. Anyway, from BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Since he has received significant coverage in sources that are not independent of the subject, and insignificant passing mentions in the reliable independent sources, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. And I didn't say that the two Timeses are not significant sources, I said that the attention given to Stonehouse in those sources was insignificant, just a passing mention. Fram (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * no discussion for six months - merge tags removed - did not reach a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Downing location
The location where flight 777 was attacked is described as 46.54N, 09.37W. How is this to be read? In degrees (with decimal point) converts to 46° 32' 24"N and 009° 22' 12"W. Or should it be read to be 46° 54' 00"N and 009° 37' 00"W? Flyingd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC).
 * No idea. Do you want to volunteer to find this out? Take care. David Straub (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it would also be interesting to know the routing and altitudes used for these scheduled flights. I have contacted BA historical department if there is anything left of this but no answer yet. I have flown the flight in MS Flightsim in a DC-3 to the shooting-down point (at 5000 ft, not sure of actual cruising altitude but must be below 10.000 feet because of oxygen req's) but come up with about one hour short. Maybe there is a gmt related mistake in the departure and attack times and also the altitude to climb to will make a difference. I have recently received the meteo-data (upperwinds!) from the Brithish meteo historical people for the area and date of the attack (also for the 15 nov 42 attack on which flight my grandfather was flightengineer). As soon as I have some more time I will put this meteo in MS FS and will see how times and locations compare. I must say, felt a bit spooky when you re-create this flight and get close to the shooting down area, 1st time there was a area of bad weater (auto created) with thunder and lightning. Another time when I had the DC-3 on 'autopilot' fly to the attack coordinates while in online flying mode I was followed by another dc-3 for about an hour untill very close to the area. I was actually away from the pc at the moment but I had selected an outside view of the plane and I noticed change in sound when another aircraft came near.. Flyingd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

Flyingd, that's really taking initiative! I think you are setting the standard a little to high for the rest of Wikipedia editors :) David Straub (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, at the time, Britain was operating on DBST throughput the war, i.e., GMT+2 hours. Hence times may differ by two hours from those used on the continent. Navigators OTOH always used GMT.


 * "DBST" = "Double British Summer Time", i.e., BST+1 hour.
 * The aircraft averaged about 150mph groundspeed from takeoff to shootdown. Although that is on the low side for a DC-3, it's not that low. The aircraft would have been at fuel-saving minimum cruise power, given the length of the overwater flight, and the wind is likely to have added many air miles flown for the track mileage covered. Britain only operated Double BST (GMT +2) in the summer during wartime, reverting to BST (GMT +1) in the winter. The times in the article are apparently given in Zulu (GMT), so the 07:35 GMT departure time from Lisbon would be 09:35 by London clocks and probably in Lisbon as well. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Burr's wife
For a time it was claimed that the first wife of actor Raymond Burr was killed on this flight. However it is now believed that there was no such person. If we are to mention her at all, I think it is relevant to mention that she is believe to be an invention, and if we mention this it is also relevant to explain why she is an invention. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for removing her name altogether. Anyway, what you added lacked reliable sources, which is why I removed it, and it removed other information about the flight. We should not get into the specifics about Burr himself - that is already covered on his bio page, where it should stay - as this article is in no way about him. - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finding a source would be the first thing, but moving the statement to the article on Raymond Burr would also be logical. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC).


 * The last time I looked, it was already there. However, most of the article is based on the claims of a man claiming to have been Burr's lover, which claims he made after Burr's death. His accounts are accepted as gospel on that page, and conflicting views are summarily dismissed. Not a very encyclopedic article, but what one expects when such a contentious topic is involved. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in a quick read of some sources indicated that Burr mentions his first wife in his biography although there is serious doubt by modern researchers if she ever existed, or was a ruse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Whatever the truth actually is, it doesn;t need to be covered on an aircraft accident page. It does seem notable that a woman on the flight was claimed by Burr to have been his wife, especially if ther flight is mentioned in his bio article, but the rest should be left to his bio page to cover. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I included the statement (as it appears now) in the original article when I wrote it. The fact that Burr's wife (or supposed wife) is mentioned in a number of sources I think warrants the inclusion of the mention of her as it exists now. But beyond that, I don't think there should be any mention of Burr or his sexuality. It's irrelevant to this article. David Straub (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That notion appears to be the general consensus. The statement is also verified by a reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm a little surprised that this claim still appears on the page in the form that it does, given that a) no-one called "Annette Sutherland Burr" was on Flight 777, and b) it now seems widely acknowledged that "Annette Sutherland Burr" never even existed. If we needed more proof, can we consider the fact that - as we would expect - all the passengers on Flight 777 are listed on the register of Civilian War Dead maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, viz: In contrast, there is no trace of an "Annette Sutherland" or an "Annette Sutherland Burr" on the register at all. It's important to note that the British government paid conpensation to the families of people killed due to "war causes," hence very detailed records of civilian deaths were made and kept. Suffice to say, The Times contains no trace of any other BOAC or other air liner being shot down or even lost by accident in the same area at the same time, nor of the putative Mrs Burr under her married or maiden name, either previously or subsequently. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfred Tregear Chenhalls
 * Francis German Cowlrick
 * Caroline Anne Hutcheon
 * Petra Hutcheon
 * Rotha Violet Lettie Hutcheon
 * Lesie Howard
 * Wilfred Jacob Berthold Israel
 * Gordon Thompson Maclean
 * Cecilia Amelia Falla Paton
 * Peggy Evelyn Stonehouse
 * Kenneth Stonehouse
 * Tyrrell Mildmay Shervington
 * Ian James Sharp

Passengers
Just to save anybody looking up passengers for errant actors wifes: MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ivan James Sharp from North London.
 * Francis German Cowlrick, worked for the engineers Babcock and Wilcox.
 * Gordon Thomas MacLean, Foreign Office.
 * Kenneth Stonehouse of Reuters.
 * Mrs Evelyn Peggy Stonehouse, of Forest Hill, London
 * Wilfred Jacob Berthold Israel, from Golders Green, London.
 * Mrs Cecilia Amelia Falla Paton, from Manchester.
 * Leslie Howard, actor.
 * Alfred Tregar Chenhalls, chartered accountant from London.
 * Mrs Rotha Voilet Lettie Hutcheon and two daughters Petra (11) and Caroline (18m)
 * Tyrell Milmay Shervington of Shell Mex


 * OK, thanks. Maybe she was travelling under another name? Howab out that actress Leslie Howard? ;) - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Who was the Ian Colvin who wrote the book about "BOAC 777"?
Since the book was published in 1957 and described the incident that happened on June 1st, 1943, it cannot possibly be the same Ian Colvin which it links to in the article. That Ian Colvin is said to have passed away already in 1939. Or is that a mistake? At least one additional source provides the same year of death. So which Ian Colvin wrote the book? Ophirbaer (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't resist googling. His full name was Ian Goodhope Colvin. He was born on September 23rd, 1912 and died in 1975, no date mentioned. Source: http://www.librarything.com/author/colviniangoodhope. He wrote quite a few books in his time! I may try to find some more particulars later.Flyingd (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Colvin was also a 'Special Operations Executive' from 1939-1946. Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/foi-feb2006.pdfFlyingd (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some more info: Ian Colvin, 1912-1975, was a correspondent for the News Chronicle and Daily Telegraph, stationed in Berlin, 1938-39, and had contacts with high ranking German opponents of Hitler. He set off a "war scare" in London in mid-March 1939, which contributed to the timing of the British Guarantee to Poland of March 3. This is a narrative with selected archival documents, which became accessible after the 1967 Act of Parliament reduced the time of closure for state papers from 50 to 30 years. This launched a rush by historians to publish new accounts of appeasement. Colvin condemns it, but most western historians came to judge the policy as natural in view of Britain's military weakness and economic problems. Source: http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/BiblPt2.htm Flyingd (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Although seemingly obvious now, appeasement was a BIG mistake, for the simple reason that if Chamberlain and Britain had stood up to Hitler at Munich then saner people high-up in the Wehrmacht would have organised a coup and removed Hitler from power - see Peter Ustinov story here: Talk:Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg - Ustinov's father was involved in the British Secret Service and it was in his house in 1938 that secret talks were held between British officials and very senior members of the German High Command. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Shirer discusses the coup option at length in Rise and Fall based on his conversations with Wehrmacht officers at that time, and finds it highly unlikely - such plans existed and were indeed quite advanced at times, but the officers were extremely adept at finding excuses (in particular their personal oath of loyalty to the Führer) to chicken out. Shirer considers it almost unimaginable that they would ever had the guts to coup even if the British and French had resisted at Munich and the Czech army would have shot back. He points out that a handful of staff officers was in fact trying to stage a coup during Munich, but found their colleagues deferring to their oaths and excusing themselves constantly, and so the coup planning was stopped dead in its tracks by a general climate of Kadavergehorsam. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info - yes that unfortunately does sound plausible and quite likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.129 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional source (secretly recorded) refuting Hintze
In Neitzel & Welzer Soldaten: Protokolle vom Kämpfen, Töten und Sterben, there is a partial protocol of a conversation one Heinz Dock had when in British captivity on July 17, 1943. He was a Gruppe V/KG40 airman involved in the downing of BOAC 777 and refutes a) the assumption that the shootdown was an accident (ie instead of forcing a landing) but just as well b) that the German aircrews were ordered to intercept BOAC 777 (instead of it being a target-of-opportunity). Dock was a navigator/observer aboard Ju 88 C-6 F8+NZ (W.Nr. 360078) of 15/V/KG40 (three-crew fighter version - pilot: Georg Frassek, radioman: Helmut Hinze) when it was shot down July 12, 1943 by Whitley BD681; the crew was taken captive by a Royal Navy craft. I have no data on Dock's role during the BOAC 777 shootdown at hand; in earlier Luftwaffe bombers, the navigator/observer was a fully qualified pilot (and indeed often the plane's commander) and thus could change roles between missions, but when the Ju 88 was introduced, cross-training was reduced and the navigator/observer was usually just that (see below for significance).

"'We shot down four civilian airliners.' Co-captive Heil asks: 'Were they armed?' - 'Nope.' - 'Why did you shoot them down?' - 'What came in front of our guns was shot down. [gives details of BOAC 777 and how the pilots took evasive action] Then one [German plane] was at his 6 o'clock, then another. Then, we very calmly and matter-of-factly squeezed the trigger [laughs]' - 'Did he [ie the plane] go down?' - 'Of course, man.' - 'And the others [ie the passengers] bailed out?' - 'Nope. They were all dead.'"

Dock also states that he only learned about Howard's presence aboard BOAC 777 from UK radio news: "Also aboard was a famous English movie actor, Leslie Howard. [We know that b]ecause the English radio reported it that evening."

It is obvious that at least Dock had no foreknowledge of BOAC 777 until they happened across it and only learned of its passengers post facto, but also that Gruppe V considered civilian aircraft legitimate targets. The latter fact is very important, because the Dock-Heil conversation took place soon after the incident under British surveillance, of which the prisoners were, however, not aware. Dock incriminates himself by being "trigger-happy", yet makes no mention of an order to intentionally target BOAC 777; thus, if such an order did exist at all, it was not widely known to the German aircrews. By contrast, Hintze's claim was made "decades after the war ended" in a conscious interview situation; almost certainly, Hintze was lying in an attempt to exonerate his unit from this war crime.

The "one [...], then another [...] we very calmly and matter-of-factly squeezed the trigger" speaks volumes about the general attitude within Gruppe V regarding the incident. V/KG40 used Ju 88 C-6, whose offensive weaponry was not controlled by the navigator/observer but by the pilot. Thus, the claim that "all of the German pilots involved expressed regret" is refuted by Dock's testimony; at least one or two of the German pilots were nonchalant about if not actually boastful of their downing BOAC 777 shortly after the incident, regardless whether Dock was the "calm and matter-of-fact" pilot himself, or his statement refers to Frassek or whatever pilot Dock was assigned to during the BOAC 777 shootdown.

The source for the Dock-Heil conversation is given by Heitzel & Welzer as: "SRA 4212, 17. 7. 1943, TNA, WO 208/4130". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Some more interesting reading including a (more extended) German POW conversation with one of the attackers: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-shoot-down-of-leslie-howard/ Would it be worth to put this as an external link in the article? Flyingd (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Churchill assassination theory
I'm not sure why I never noticed this before, but there's a major contradiction in this section. It says (twice) that Churchill himself supported the theory that the Germans thought that he was aboard the plane -- and then supplies a direct quote from his memoir that says exactly the opposite: "The brutality of the Germans was only matched by the stupidity of their agents. It is difficult to understand how anyone could imagine that with all the resources of Great Britain at my disposal I should have booked a passage in an unarmed and unescorted plane from Lisbon and flown home in broad daylight." So, which is it? The article can't have it both ways. Someone more familiar with the source material than I should resolve this, one way or the other. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Last radio transmission
The article states: "In its 14 June 1943 issue, Time magazine carried a brief story on the downing of BOAC Flight 777. The most valuable information from that article was the details of the final radio broadcast from the Dutch pilot. "I am being followed by strange aircraft. Putting on best speed. ...we are being attacked. Cannon shells and tracers are going through the fuselage. Wave-hopping and doing my best."

Would the transmission not have come from the onboard wireless operator (van Brugge)?Flyingd (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Leslie Howard article
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leslie_Howard_%28actor%29#inconsistent_bump

Captain de Koning not aboard during attack on 15 november 1942
According to information and online discussions in Dutch de Koning was not aboard during the flight of the first attack on the Ibis. Apparently (some?) Bristol-Lisbon flights were flown single-pilot. Flyingd (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Where was the Ibis when the Germans invaded Holland and Schiphol was bombed?
Someone wrote a note in the citations that according to Ian Colvin's book the Ibis was at Schiphol airport when the Germans invaded. On may 10th Germany invaded the Netherlands and bombed Schiphol airport. A Dutch aviation history site ( http://www.hdekker.info/DIVERSEN/Schiphol-KLM.htm ) contains a transcribed internal report made by Parmentier about the KLM aircraft at Schiphol at this date. In this report it list the aircraft that were damaged (some beyond repair) and a few that were still ready to fly. The PH-ALI Ibis was not listed. According to general information the Ibis had flown the day before (may 9th) to Shoreham on a scheduled service and was told to stay there by KLM on May 10th. One DC-3, the PH-ARZ Zilverreiger, did manage to escape from Schiphol to England on May 13th with Parmentier as captain. The flight was classified as governmental. Flyingd (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BOAC Flight 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.hetnet.nl/~dutchairliners/klm/DC3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216031621/http://lesliehoward.squarespace.com/about-the-documentary/ to http://lesliehoward.squarespace.com/about-the-documentary/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024013919/http://lesliehowardsociety.multiply.com/ to http://lesliehowardsociety.multiply.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Camo paint job
Can't seem to find a reason for why the plane was painted in a camouflage pattern. Very unwise given the unrest in the region. knoodelhed (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It was done to make the aircraft harder for the Germans to see. The Germans, whatever they may later have pretended, routinely attacked British civil flights as 'enemy'. During that summer of 1943, German Focke-Wulf 190s made multiple attempts to intercept BOAC Mosquitos on the Stockholm-Scotland route. (And Mosquitos, with their remarkable speed, were used precisely because of the danger of German interception.)

The Germans attacked Flight 777 just because it was there, and it was normal German procedure. The conspiracy theories are, like most conspiracy theories, a bit daft. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence? The Banner talk 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't know anything about aviation during the Second World War, Banner, don't post on that topic. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A personal attack is no evidence of your statements above. The Banner  talk 20:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * UK airfields were liable to air attack by the Luftwaffe and un-camouflaged aircraft would not have lasted long before being destroyed on the ground.


 * BOAC originally used Whitleys and Lodestars on the Swedish run but they were frequently attacked by German fighters which is why BOAC went over to using the Mosquito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.50 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, British airfields were immune from attack after autumn 1940, because the Spitfire force ruled out German daylight incursions as unaffordable. The camouflage applied to BOAC machines was to make the aircraft less visible in flight because the Germans would always try to intercept them. BOAC decided not to use Whitleys on the Sweden route (Bowyer & Sharp, Mosquito, Faber 1967, p.330). They used Lodestars and Dakotas, flying in darkness, during the winter months, and Mosquitos in the summer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BOAC Flight 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.7digital.com/stores/historytv/artists/churchills-bodyguard/complete-series-%281%29/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529122053/http://www.trueintrepid.com/CndPress.htm to http://www.trueintrepid.com/CndPress.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wilfrid Israel 20.JPG

Today
Some facts;
 * 1) There was no such German organisation called Atlantic Command.
 * 2) There was an organisation called Fliegerführer Atlantik. This is common knowledge.
 * 3) it was created in 1941 not 1942 or 1943, check the well-sourced article. This is also common and uncontroversial knowledge.
 * 4) The source used is no where near good enough and not qualified to pass comment on the Luftwaffe
 * 5) Goss, who is respected authority on the Luftwaffe, is used on both articles and makes no reference to this phantom "Atlantic Command" and being an expert he doesn't say it was formed in 1942 and 1943. He wouldn't make an elementary error. And I have the book. He does day FFA was based at Bordeaux and do all other competent histories.

2A04:4A43:4A7F:EA3:0:0:56A5:DAE5 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Then add the source... The Banner  talk 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You've blocked the page, deliberately so that isn't possible. 2A04:4A43:4A7F:EA3:0:0:56A5:DAE5 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not block the page. It was an administrator who did that, on my request, to stop your editwarring. But give the source and I shall see what I can do. The Banner  talk 10:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At your request. So it wouldn't be blocked if you hadn't asked. Incredible.
 * It isn't edit warring if the sources support me, and not you. If you really are sincere in wanting this article to reflect information provided by the best sources available, add the following:
 * National Archives (2001). The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force: 1933-1945. London: Public Record Office. ISBN 978-1-903365-30-4 p. 105
 * Hooton, E.R. (2010). The Luftwaffe: A Study in Air Power, 1933–1945. Classic Publications. ISBN 978-1-906537-18-0 p. 111
 * Forczyk, Robert (2010). Fw 200 Condor vs Atlantic Convoy. London: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84603-917-1. p. 29
 * I have them, and many more unless you think I'm simply stripping them from the Fliegerführer Atlantik article. I also have Goss. 194.33.196.48 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will check those sources. The Banner  talk 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Rise and Fall of the German Air Force, also page 104, so it covers 104-5. HQ at Lorient, though that isn't relevant to this article. The major base at Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport is mentioned. 2A04:4A43:4A7F:EA3:0:0:56A5:DAE5 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

David Isby, "The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea" I could use. That maybe overkill. 2A04:4A43:4A7F:EA3:0:0:56A5:DAE5 (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)