Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 8

Decisive Victory
I believe the result of the Battle can not be concluded in three words and certainly not Decisive Victory for Britain!!

It is completely propaganda of the Allied and n ot based on usual methods of naming a battle at the end " decisive  " The Luftwaffe may not acheive their full strategic targets and acheivements but they show the RAF their strength and their real advancement in tactics!

let us use sources and not speculations, theory , opinion or potentially correct analaysis which at the end must be shown as it is a not a fact in Wikipedia ! The Memoirs Of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring  - Greenhill Books  Page 84 He challenged the statement of sir W. Churchill that the RAF acheived decisive victory !

his memoirs is written more than 5 years after the war is over. His words is fair and honest ! and he explained well WHY the Luftwaffe was able to continue uninturrpetued war on Britian till the next stage was shown " Russia "

 I suggest replacing Decisive Victory to Survival of RAF and causalities on both sides with Around 15-25% heavier on German Side

 --Hiens (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't work. There are a million sources that support the extent of the victory as decisive. It was a battle fought for Britain, it failed. It failed to end the war in the west in 1940 as Hitler hoped. It failed (along with the Blitz) to knock Britain out of the war in 1940-41, with decisive consequences beyond the scope of this article.
 * But if it soothes your national pride, you can always blame it on German mistakes rather than the tenacity of the RAF. Dapi89 (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hiens]. There was nothing 'decisive' about it. British historians like J. Foreman or H.P. Willmott have put forward very convincing and balanced arguments about the propaganda nature of the British claiming 'victory' in September/October, despite the fact that essentially nothing have changed, with the Luftwaffe keeping pounding the British isles and shipping, and with the RAF unable to stop it. Of course the Battle is an important myth of British national awareness, and was highly propagandized already 1940. Unfortunately, the story that emerged is a rather false one, and it is difficult, if not impossible to find any sources that would support that the German aims were to finish the war in the West in 1940 - already before the battle even started, the Germans were considering delaying the whole thing to 1941. And as Willmott showed, in terms of strategical position, and military gains nothing have changed in Britains favour, but it was an important propaganda/political victory). [[User:Kurfürst|Kurfürst (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You would. Largely irrelevant anyway. Its already cited, and I can add three or four more to it. And your claims that the Germans did not want to end the war in the west in 1940 are extremely silly. Hitler already had his eye on the USSR in June 1940 and this can be proved over and over again. The historians you "quote" are not remotely well known enough to have the final say. Over and out. Dapi89 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Two editors and at least two British historians against one editor. Kurfürst (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah. Read the archives again. Dapi89 (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are several discussions on the subject in the Archives, it only means that the question of 'Victory' (and especially 'decisive' victory, which I find a somewhat laughable idea in view of the very heavy RAF losses, and the non-stop bombing of Britain for almost a year, stopping only when Russia was invaded) was a repeatedly contested and controversial question and such pure black and white claims are difficult to make. Perhaps it would be best to note the debate between historians..? Kurfürst (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a numbers game Kurfurst. You know that the editors on this page have already made up their mind that to attempt to right great wrongs is not wikipedia policy (see: section 3 of Tendentious editing). So to this end - the accepted and mainstream result belongs on the info box only. Quoting historians needs its own section at the bottom of the article and must be put in block quotes. I would strongly recommend this to avoid any false iterpretations being made about the idividual historians. At the same time we do not won this page - others need to be brought in to decide what is best. Dapi89 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

... and taking the position of one or even two historians just because they support your own position is not enough. I am looking at information right now in which Hitler said "the United Kingdom cannot be defeated in 1940", 20.8.1940. It also talks about "Germans aim of forcing an outcome in the west", "the German failure", a neccessary defensive victory", a "decisive victory with strategic consequences". The fact that the RAF suffered considerable losses is not the issue - it wasn't forced to abandon daylight battles of large scale. It doesn't matter whether the Germans bombed the Uk for a year, they did so under dark to avoid attrition with no hope of winning. Furthermore, the Brits didn't have to shoot back, by simply overcoming the damage psychologically they won. Which everway you cut it, you cannot possibly argue that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain - now thats what I find laughable. Dapi89 (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What you find laughable is not relevant to the matter as your position is firmly based on an emotional stance. Finding tidbits from God knows where to re-assure yourself about it may be interesting to you, but what for, since we have detailed - and conflicting - conclusions drawn by renowned historians, and not by a freshman from the college... Your assertion that the 'did so under dark to avoid attrition with no hope of winning' is of course, flawed, as by September the level of attrition of German bombers was shrinking, while the number of bombers remained stable during the whole campaign, and British fighter loss rate was increasing; this was already discussed - nothing was preventing the LW from continuing the campaign during the day, and certainly they did continue the campaign with day bomber sorties as Hooton and Foreman makes clear. The 'psychologically victory', while I find it very odd, but would be along the line of H. P. Willmott's conclusion about the BoB was militarily insignificant, but important from the political/propaganda view. And as Foreman puts it, if the British won, they surely must have defeated the Luftwaffe, which, alas, sadly did not happen. They continued to wage a strategic air war against Britain until the invasion of the USSR.


 * Its not quite a numbers game, if there are several very serious historians stating all the same, emotional based responses from a number of 'editors' with vague ideas on the subject is not going to challange the professional view. Its a matter of historical question, and as I can see it, there's a good number of historians, both British and German, who disagree with another number of historians on the subject. Certainly there's no accepted and mainstream view on the subject, unless you wish to claim that Overy, Foreman, Willmott, Prien, Klee etc. are not 'mainstream' historians, or wish to ignore their views completely. And since Overy, Foreman, Willmott, Prien etc. are all mainstream historians and do not accept the theory about a 'decisive' BoB, there is no accepted and mainstream conclusion on the outcome of the battle, without violating NPOV. Personally I agree the most with Willmott's assertion: in terms of purely military terms, the BoB was of minor significance; the Germans could not destroy the RAF, but the RAF couldn't stop the Germans from bombing Britain's shipping and industry almost at will. The German strategic dominance on the Continent remained unquestionable both in the air and on the ground, while Britain retained the upper hand on the sea. In other words, little has changed compared to the status quo of June 1940. The Battle had more of a political and propaganda significance, showing British will to resist, but while this was a good start, alone in itself it could not reverse anything, as Britain simply did not have the means to challange the German position on the continent, established in the Western Campaign. Kurfürst (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurfurst, you're full of contradictions. What I found laughable was your interpration of events: . And you have added only one historian, so there ain't a debate. Kesselring is not an objective source, and the Overy "myths" and Willmott were added without page numbers and quotes of any kind!!!!! Dapi89 (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw Kurfurst, you said: If there are several discussions on the subject in the Archives, it only means that the question of 'Victory' (and especially 'decisive' victory, which I find a somewhat laughable idea and What you find laughable is not relevant to the matter as your position is firmly based on an emotional stance. - take you're own advice. Dapi89 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the 'discussion' from the infobox it is just a one line summary not a place for debate on alternate theories. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. It was in repsonse to the result being changed to yet another revisionist version by a very few agenda driven indivduals who want the minority point to be the mainstream one. That's all I have to say. The argument, "the Luftwaffe did not lose the BoB" is a nonsense. Dapi89 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User Dapi89 Obviously you are boldly opposing any thing which might seems in your head praising the German side! I mentioned Albert Kesselring!! One of the main maestros of BOB! And he wrote this memoirs in 1950+! And he mentioned his reasons very simply and very honestly!! why it is not decisive victory for Britain! I can't help you if you don't buy those things!

See the words of Albert Kesselring in page 83-his Memoirs

"Considering however, the state of its development at the time and the number of serviceable aircraft kept constantly in the air even in the most adverse weather conditions, it would be arguable to speak of the “failure “of the German Luftwaffe in the battle of Britain, As has already been explained, it is historical indemonstrable that the sea lion invasion had to be abandoned because the Luftwaffe was not up to its task and because of the impenetrable British defenses. had this been so, the uninterrupted series of bombing attacks on Great Britain could never have been kept up for the nine months after sea lions cancellation"

The Luftwaffe continued air raids till the Russian campaign! Yes they failed to destroy (annihilate) the RAF but they caused a lot of damages and showed to the RAF new tactics and technical methods of Air attack. And also the RAF also failed to stop the raids on Britain and the losses caused by each raid although and didn't want to put his full energy in BoB - but the RAF fought bravely and caused damages more to the German side. Albert Kesselring words are clear; Keep in mind that the Sea Lion Operation was never been serious; it is merely camouflage as Albert Kesselring said.- - Hitler was looking east - I suggest replacing Decisive Victory to "Survival of RAF and causalities on both sides with around 15-25% heavier on German Side --Hiens (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing which I mentioned before - If it was decisive victory; and the Luftwaffe decisively defeated! Then don't you think it is strange

1- They prepared to Balkan Campaign during their decisive defeat and win over Britain there and acheive their goals!

2- If they were decisively defeated then why they continue supply air attack in North African Corps

3- If they were decisively defeated why they continued to prepare for the biggest Air-ground invasion of History Barbarossa! this is not an atitude of decisively defeated Air Force !

4- Last but not the least they continue air raids on Britain!

There was no decisive victory, it is propaganda for the war time and we need to bypass it and mention the reality after 50 years of the war. It is not the number of historians which will favor the opinion; it is primary sources or secondary. We are talking about Encyclopedia... --Hiens (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC) We have established at the end of this page the list of Historian supporting the Decisive Victory Dapi89 (talk) - Sorry I deleted user Dapi89 unintentially .. and I repeated it from memory. With all respect to your knowledge and the names of Historian you mentioned ...This is not scientific way ; please mention their words as well as the reference name and page number where they said quotably it is decisive - the same way I mentioned about  Albert Kesselring   -Primary Source. ,

Please start with Richard Overy as I think you have misquoting him!!!!!

BTW you reffered to Terraine as supporter of Decisive Victory, and his words are not clear it is decisive! and Albert Kesserling mention in his memoirs that German Industries was capable to replanishment for all the losses in BoB

AGAIN I will ask you to read the four facts I mentioned above which contradicting his Terraine and your words.

--Hiens (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please contuine the discussion in the last section to keep everyones thoughts and opinions together.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Turning Point of BoB
Why it was not mentioned the Turning point of BoB ? I mean first week of September when the Luftwaffe started to attack vital infrastructure of England, ammunition factories etc And that was precisely after the famous RAF raid on Berlin ! Robert Wright was the Personal Assistant to ACM Sir Hugh Dowding : "The last week of August 1940- and the first week of September was our worse weeks 103 fighting commander’s pilots died. 128 seriously wounded Britain was losing fighters even more than Germany ; around 500 in two weeks ! 6 airfields were put out of action at time " ... Hitler and Goering decided to switch to attack ammunition factories, infrastructure after the raid on Berlin 25 August abandoned attacking the airfields which gave the RAF the chance to reunite their unite and save the fighters command to be strengthen again and conduct massive resistance against the Luftwaffe.---Hiens (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the RAF commanders overstate the case of the RAF in 1940 to make themseves look good. Historians have known for some time now the switch was not critical. Infact, the number of British pilots and aircraft rose during the battle rather than declined. Whereas the Luftwaffe's strength dropped in fighter and bomber strength by 25 and 30% between August and December 1940
 * Mr Wright did not have access to the OrBat's of each side.
 * The only sector station to be knocked out was Biggin Hill - and only for a few hours. Stephen Bungay has found that the bombing achieved very little in the last week of August and first week of September. So this myth that RAF FC was on its last legs is just that.Dapi89 (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  'Whereas the Luftwaffe's strength dropped in fighter and bomber strength by 25 and 30% between August and December 1940' Wishful, as usual. It has been already discussed:  The Luftwaffe had 1,380 bombers on 29 June 1940, by 2 November 1940 this increased to 1,423 level bombers; Where is that 25 and 30% decrease in bomber strenght..?   Practically all historians, as well as Dowding agree that Fighter Command's situation was critical by early September, the major problem being the loss of pilots, that exceeding the number trained, and who had to be replaced by trainee pilots with as little as 10 hours of flight time on operational aircraft, taken from the - already much shortened - training course before they could even finish it. I have very little faith in Dapi89s interpretation of Bungay as well, given the above, and because Dapi89 produced a number of misquotes in this article already (most notably, misquoting Murray and Irving). Kurfürst (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurfurst, you're a liar. Stop falsely accussing others of things you guilty of yourself. All sorts of historians give all sorts of figures. Murray uses secondary sources. Dapi89 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm done with you now Kurfurst. I can understand you're upset about losing the argument, but you are just going to have to be grown up about it and accept it. Bye. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Luftwaffe had 1,380 bombers on 29 June 1940, by 2 November 1940 this increased to 1,423 level bombers; Where is that 25 and 30% decrease in bomber strenght..? "

You do realise you are twisting figures to suit your own ends; you are negelecting the fact that the Luftwaffe lost bombers during the course of the battle - the decrease in their bomber strength is very apparent. From the article the Luftwaffe had 1,380 medium bombers at the start of the battle and apparently lost 1,014 bombers. If by the end of the battle they had 1,423 bombers, yes that is an increase of what 40? However hypthetical strength could have been something near 3,000 had the battle not taken place.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The extent of how wrong Kurfurst is and his accussations against me being false can be seen in Bungay's quote:

''Fighter Command's victory was decisive. Not only had it survived, it ended the battle stonger than it had ever been. On 6 July its operational strength stood at 1,259 pilots. On 2 November, the figure was 1,796, an increase of over 40%. It had also seriously mauled its assailant. In a lecture held in Berlin on 2 February 1944, the intelligence officer of KG 2, Hauptmann Otto Bechle, showed that from August to December 1940 German fighter strength declined by 30% and bomber strength by 25%''. Bungay 2000, p. 368.

Who's lying now Kurfurst? I rest my case. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly forgot, he goes on to say: ''Many believe the Luftwaffe did come close in the last week of August and first week of September. In fact all their fury achieved very little. The only sector station to go down was Biggin Hill, and it was non-operational for just a few hours''. Bungay 2000, p. 368

You're full of hot air Kurfurst. Once again the sources prove it. Dapi89 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dapi89, of course Kurfurst is wrong and he knows it. Just take it easy, you are doing a good job.--Jacurek (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek Shalom ! You came out of the blue to support Dapi89 and his cursing to user and praise his work! I would suggest you to stay in silence or be fair judge! As you neither helping Dapi nor improving the style of conversation between users.

User Dapi please answer and defend yourself without cursing and been fussy outrage! It is funny that User Kurfurst said that! I was going to say statement close to his words but I chose to be diplomatic! You have mentioned Overy supported the Decisive victory of the RAF over the Luftwaffe and I think it is misunderstanding of what R. Overy wanted to say!! From the way I expect Overy! I read his book "War and Economy in the Third Reich” and some reviews of his book BoB http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/Overy.htm and certainly I would hit his BoB soon. User Dapi I asked you instead to mention the reference and words by words of the Historian in order for all of us to agree on his conclusion! The same way I mention about Kesselring and his memoirs. Don’t take it personnel and start cursing users! This is will turn the discussion into you tube free cursing trading Blog! Kurfurst you may have the right to discredit somebody’s interpretation but don’t make it sounds like personnel! Now I am inviting both of you to come down and let us improve the article..  Survival of RAF-Decisive victory  “RAF is far from destroyed and Germany didn't have air control over the channel. Let us keep it this way  ... for the moment

''' The Turning point of BoB is important historical issue. '''

The Turning point of BoB is important historical issue. User Dapi89 I mentioned Sir Robert Wright which he speaks directly of Dowding! You said  Most of the RAF commanders overstate the case of the RAF in 1940 to make themselves look good   What a serious accusation!! I hope you are not calling them liars too!!

However Dowding express this fact that after September 7 it was the turning point and Robert Wright only transfer what he sees and heard! not even his opinion. And not only he said that~!so far I found In the book of Luftwaffe Squadrons 1939-1945 - Chris Bishop - mentioned in page 33 “Why the Luftwaffe took the pressure off the RAF is still disputed. The High Command may have been convinced that they had broken its back. Alternatively, it may have been a night raid by the RAF on Berlin on 25 August that enraged Hitler and prompted retaliation in kind.” So he referred to two reasons: The Luftwaffe leaders convinced that they achieve their goals by broken the back of the RAF or it is August 25 raids! Also David Irving mentioned that in His Hitler’s war that Churchill forced Hitler to attack the London and British cities by Berlin raid! This is the same conclusion that Robert Wright said!! And I have other historian said that but I just cannot remember them now! So it is not correct to dispute the words of Robert Wright and the idea in general! I encourage all users to bring additional info to that paragraph – 25 August Turning Point if BoB - before I add it. --Hiens (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that everyone cool down and forget about these issues for a while; as a result of all of this editing and bickering the standards of "debate" have gone down the tubes, as has the quality of this article! Two editors have been blocked for a week, partly because of this. A time out is required before more editors are blocked. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While i agree in theroy i do believe there wasnt any need for the above discussions, people are throwing their opinions around quite a bit and name dropping but hardly any reliable sources stating other wise have neen brought to the table i.e. book names, author etc and page numbers, if needed direct quotes.
 * That is what most of these last 2 discussions has been about - brining evidence, not opinion or interpretation, to further enhance the article. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While there's nothing wrong with discussion, when it becomes an exercise in futility it's time for everyone to step back and relax. I'm all too aware of how endless discussion can end up becoming heated, and the more heated it becomes the less light is shed. So far this discussion, for all of the words expended, has achieved nothing and has not led to an improvement in the quality of the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bader and the 'Finger four'
Reading through the narrative it implies that Bader devised the 'finger four' formation and in the following paragraph that the Luftwaffe adopted it, rather than the other way round. A minor point, but misleading for the average reader. If everyone's in agreement can it be tweaked a little? Thanks Harryurz (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, definitely needs work; cutting and pasting the paragraphs should place this in context. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The section anachronistically had 110s using Badern's finger four, so I've changed that to Schwarm and removed a whitespace. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Decisive Victory to RAF or not ... The endless argument continues
Recently, the following statement was appended to the infobox: " Bungay 2000, p. 368: "Fighter Command's victory was decisive". Richard Overy How sigificant was the battle? in The Burning Blue, 2000, pp. 271-272: "In late November 1940 Churchill was reported still to be convinced that the Germans will 'strive by every means to smash us before the spring. We are in for a really terrible ordeal'. In this sense the Battle of Britain ranks with Midway of the German halt at Moscow: A necessary defensive victory, but a long way from turning the tide of the war". Richard Overy in The burning Blue, p. 270: "The failure to force British capitulation had one other significant consequence: it kept a powerful anti-axis military presence in Europe, which would make American entry into the European conflict at some unspecified later date in the future. A British defeat or surrender in 1940 would have made American belligerency across 3,000 miles of ocean remote". Shulman 2004, p. 63. Quote: "And so ended the first year of the war. It had given the German nation three glorious victories - Poland, Norway and France. But it had also given it three defeats, far from obvious at that time, but far more significant - Dunkirk, the failure to invade England and the decision to go to war with Russia."


 * Would interested parties, please direct their energies first to a discourse on the relative merits of the statement and its verification rather than engaging in an editwar. I have reverted the article to its state prior to the latest conflab. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Over the years there have been few that question this. But every now an then someone tries to rewrite the result for there own ends. The consensus on wikipedia (among the established and respected folk) has been it was a victory with decisive consequences. The mainstream literature always has pointed to it as victory, whether it be decisive or other. An attempt to change this under the circumstances is unacceptable - particularly by using sources written by an ex- Nazi FM. Dapi89 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Extending the "devil's advocate" argument: the contention that the Battle of Britain was decisive, is actually "arguable" as historians on all sides, and throughout the eras, have attempted to grapple with what some have termed a strategic stalemate, a "draw", reversal or withdrawal, each time, the nuancing of the wording being made to indicate the difficulty in defining the outcome of the Battle of Britain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Then why has the wording "Decisive British victory" been decided upon here without such reference? Dapi89 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The victory was decisive in every aspect of the word. It was also the first major defeat of strategic consequence to the German Wehrmacht. Personally, and this is my POV, Dunkirk (even though it was a German defeat), does not quite stand up to the decisiveness of the Battle of Britain and the decision to invade the Soviet Union. However, I do feel that Kesselring's opinion on the matter has its merits. Rejecting them purely on the basis that he was affiliated with Nazi Germany is also unacceptable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't an unreasonable rejection. I would reject Park or Dowding for the same reasons. Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The way to proceed here, isnt to rule out material, it is to establish the consensus result among historians and use that in the infobox - the debate about anything else should be dealt within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS, although saying that looking at "Foreman in the 'Battle of Britain: The Forgotten Months, November And December 1940.' 1988, p. 8.:" the statement that the luftwaffe was not defeated until 1945 is just rediculoius!


 * Ok to look at the evidence, first off we do not need quotes but we do need inline citations supporting whatever we have in the infobox.
 * 1 source apparently supports a strategic stalemate
 * 5 sources support a decisive British victory
 * 1 source states a British victory
 * 2 sources claim it was not decisive


 * Consensus is that the battle was won by the British and that it was a decisive victory. The alternative points of view should be placed in some sort of anyalisis section ala Operation Epsom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two German historians also regard it as a Decisive British victory: in John Terraine's The Right of the Line - now added. Dapi89 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Terrain has made some very liberal use of the works of the German authors. I have read both in the original. Klee doesn't make any such statements, in fact Klee makes a very clearly more complex view on the subject. As for Werner Kreipe, he did a work on the technical training in the Luftwaffe... I presume Terraine doesn't give precise references for these so-called cites so they can be verfied..? Now quoting Overy is a very funny things. Overy says, on page quoted above. "A necessary defensive victory, but a long way from turning the tide of the war". In the above this conclusion is cited for support of 'a decisive British victory', 'a British victory' and to 'claim it was not decisive'. Either Overy has a split personality (unlikely), or more likely, he is misused (never mind the weasel wording.. if it supports the POV, it 'states'. If it does not, it 'claims'). The views of dr. Jochen Prien, one of the, if not the foremost historian of the German fighter force, are too well known, and to say they do not support the notion of a 'decisive' victory in 'The Battle' is an understatement. H. P. Willmott writes. 'In military terms, the Battle of Britain was both small-scale and of limited significance... The only practical result of the campaign was that after September the RAF possessed a greater measure of air superiority over southern England in daylight hours than it had in August: in every other respect Britain's position was unchanged. At no point could she challange Germany's control of western Europe.' etc. more can be quoted, including Galland, but it can wait for later. Kurfürst (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Consensus is gainst you Kurfurst, in literature and elsewhere. Any other that doesn't agree with you, you call a liar. This why noone trusts you Kurfurst. You're accusing some of the best historians of "weasel wording" - its appaling.
 * The stuff about Overy: I never said it did - it supports victory - I have never said otherwise. And you have violated 3RRR. I have had enough for now, I think the community should deal with you. Dapi89 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurfürst challenging Germany on the contietant or even her air power over the mainland has nothing to do with the result of this battle, the battle was the German attempt to gain control of the air for grounds for a seaborne invasion - not the other away around, to quote someone and talk about how the British had no chance at this stage to reenter Europe proves and adds nothing to the outcome of this battle.
 * However instead of claiming people say whatever why not provide some inline citations here, i already pulled the information you presented and it is currently outwieghed by the people who say this was a decisive victory.
 * In regards to you quip about Overy, the quote is above - he states "The failure to force British capitulation had one other significant consequence: it kept a powerful anti-axis military presence in Europe, which would make American entry into the European conflict at some unspecified later date in the future. A British defeat or surrender in 1940 would have made American belligerency across 3,000 miles of ocean remote". A little off subject but he contriicts himself quite a few times in his Why the Allies Won book.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have another citation from Richard Holmes' The Oxford Companion to Military History, in which he states it as an RAF Victory, but does not say decisive. Dapi89 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we perhaps collect the quotes/cites from the several authors in an orderly manner (sorted by supporting : dec.vic/vic/stalemate) to see which supports which? I think it would help matters quite a bit. Personally, I find it difficult to see what kind of outcome the above Overy quote would support, it is not quite clear cut. Kurfürst (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add the cites below:


 * Authors supporting DECISIVE VICTORY


 * Authors supporting VICTORY


 * Authors supporting STALEMATE


 * I don't think there is a requirement to jump through hoops for this. The majority of historians conclude that this was a German defeat / British victory. German objectives failed, British objectives succeeded. It's a fringe opinion to say otherwise and it's the job of those proposing it to find exceptional sources to support it. Hohum (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling the conclusion of authorities like Foreman or Prien a fringe opinion is really interesting, a bit like if a man of the street would declare that some cardinals have certain fringe opinions on religion - but whatever suits you. Since the division amongst historians is not as much along the line of victory/not victory, but its decisive nature, I would say that it would be more appropriate to simply note 'British victory' or 'German failure'. I cannot see a serious case can be made for a 'decisive' battle, in view of the more modern history works. Its just unwarranted pompousness IMHO. Kurfürst (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd, since your initial edit was to call it a stalemate. A judge of the decisiveness would be what the best sources say about how decisive the effects of the battle were in the short, medium and long terms, both militarily and politically. I believe the overwhelming weight is that it was decisive, so you'll need to find some very good sources that say otherwise to even get both opinions in the article, let alone change it to stalemate. Hohum (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

'Odd, since your initial edit was to call it a stalemate.' There's nothing odd about that. I share to view put forward by Foreman. But my opinion may be different than what the wikipedia principle is. Most modern sources, German, as well as some British state it was a stalemate or that it was of small significance. And there are of course those historians and nationalist who basically repeat the same propaganda that was created in 1940 to convince the US about a Battle of mythical proportions and importance.. won on the day when '185 was shot down' (giggle). 'I believe the overwhelming weight is that it was decisive' - than that is what you believe, while several historians believe otherwise... so you will need to find your exceptional sources to prove them wrong. And no, I don't have to play your game to get your 'approval'. You do not own the article, and I have seen this 'exceptional claim' pretext far too many times when you simply have no other objection than 'I dont like it'. It ain't workin'. Kurfürst (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of all the rambling, please provide the reliable sources that show there is consensus that it was not a decisisve victory.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to the throng:
 * "As it was, the pragmatism of Dowding and his Fighter Command staff, the self-sacrifice of their pilots and the innovation of radar inflicted on Nazi Germany its first defeat. The legacy of that defeat would be long delayed in its effects; but the survival of an independent Britain which it assured was the event that most certainly determined the downfall of Hitler's Germany" .  Please, keep your constant barrage of bad faith to yourself. Wikipedia policy does work, despite your protestations otherwise. Hohum (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Given the ambiguous results of subsequent air campaigns against Germany. Japan, North Korea, and North Vietnam, it is probably fair to say that the Battle of Britain was the single most decisive air campaign in history." Hohum (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jon Lake in 'The Battle of Britain' devotes a whole chapter to the issue 'Who won the Battle of Britain', dismissing the decisive notion as a 'dangerously simplistic conclusion', and also noting that the notion of it marked the 'beginning of the end for Germany' or the claims loss of the Luftwaffe's air superiority 'is at least extremely questionable'. His final conclusion being: 'At the very least it represented a modest and partial victory for Britain'. This supports a British victory, but not a decisive one. Kurfürst (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurfürst said :"It appears that Terrain has made some very liberal use of the works of the German authors. I have read both in the original. Klee doesn't make any such statements, in fact Klee makes a very clearly more complex view on the subject. As for Werner Kreipe, he did a work on the technical training in the Luftwaffe... I presume Terraine doesn't give precise references for these so-called cites so they can be verfied..? ..... "


 * User:Dapi89 Said "Nonsense. Consensus is gainst you Kurfurst, in literature and elsewhere. Any other that doesn't agree with you, you call a liar. This why noone trusts you Kurfurst. You're accusing some of the best historians of "weasel wording" - its appaling. "


 * I think it is not a problem to dispute the understanding of a writer ! Although it is not the place to verify this !

User Dapi please relax ; user Kurfurst simply provided sources contradicted each other!! Either one is mistaken or had misunderstanding or misinformed !! User Krfurst didn't accuse anybody !! So no need to attack him
 * I also have one point contradict Terrain work !he quotes General Klee that Luftwaffe bleed to death from causalities while Albert Kesselring stated in his memoirs that the German industries are capable of replenishment!


 * One more thing which I mentioned before and removed -

If it was decisive victory; and the Luftwaffe decisively defeated! Then don't you think it is strange


 * 1) - They prepared to Balkan Campaign during their decisive defeat and win over Britain there and achieve their goals!


 * 1) - If they were decisively defeated then why they continue supply air attack in North African Campaign

this is not an attitude of decisively defeated Air Force !
 * 1) - If they were decisively defeated why they continued to prepare for next stage which was the biggest Air-ground invasion of History Barbarossa
 * 1) - Last but not the least they continue air raids on Britain!

There was no decisive victory, it is propaganda for the war time and we need to bypass it and mention the reality after 50 years of the war.


 * I will help to compromise !
 * - The reason for disagreement was the abrupt change in Strategy of the Luftwaffe ! first it was mentions in German propaganda and publicatuions Sea Lion !
 * - Second Hitler begin to prepare for Barbarossa end his mind moved toward East even in August 1940 as Kietel and Speer mentioned in their memoirs
 * Then the Balkan campaign ; then finally the Start of Barbarossa !


 * so it is true they never acheive the basic goals and strategy to get air superiority and destroy the RAF !
 * The RAF showed stronger resistance and muscle more than the Luftwaffe expected and that'w why Kesselring praised the RAF effort!

But again their goals and strategy changed and the BoB became camuflage and entrtain the audiences till the Curton raised for the next chapter  Barbarossa - these were the Kesselring words


 * I thinbk it is hard to oppose national myth ! let us find some comprpomise !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiens as i posted before, which you seemed to ignore but thankfully adhered to the request to keep the discussion in the one place; you may disagree with the consensus of opinion however you will note from the current discussion, and the additional citations added to the article, historians supporting that this was more than just a victory outwieghs the opposite (up to now).

In regards to Kesselring's memoirs that are considered a primary source and his opinion whereas secondary sources are more analytical and reliable to use when it comes to sourcing the outcome of battles. Material losses nor what the luftwaffe got up to later in the year or the next year is not what is being discussed, to argue such a point is missing the fact that the Lufftwaffe failed to achieve contorl of the air and the invasion of the UK was cancelled. To provide you with a similar example, as you seem to like the North African battles - the 2nd Alamien was the desisive momment in the campaign however that didnt stop the Germans and Italians from resisting for another 6 months and prolonging the North African war until 1943. Just because something happened next doesnt mean a conclusion didnt happen previously.

At any rate, your opinion - sorry - doesnt matter, what does matter is reliable sources. You have made several points and stated you do not believe the current consensus, then please provide some sources to support you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Before Alemein we never had a victory. After Alemein we never had a defeat". Churchill


 * Please do not twist politicians words to suit your own ends and push a certain POV, it’s a known fact that there had been victories prior to El Alamein. It is quite ludicrous to take this speech word for word unless of course you want to state that, without supporting evidence, that the Battle of Britain ended in defeat for the British, the Kriegsmarine’s surface fleet was never crippled or holed up in port, that Italian East Africa was not liberated, that the Italian surface fleet was not crippled, that Malta had fallen, that Operations Compass and Crusader had never happened, that Tobruk did not withstand the first siege, that the Iraqi rebels won, the Vichy French won and the Iranians defeated the might of the Anglo-Soviet armies.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and the above extremely simplistic and dishonest strawmen arguement has to do exactly what with the question at hand...? Nada.. Of course Churchill's speech can be ignored on the basis that he is just a politician, but there are plenty of more up-to-date and respectable sources stating that the Battle of Britain was of very limited significance. Kesselring, Foreman, Prien, Wilmmott, Lake, Overy, Klee (who you misquoted) etc.
 * Moreover, these authors do not only 'declare' a wishful and/or preconceptual conclusion, but also support it with well formed arguments. In addition Ian Kershaw in his Hitler - Nemesis work also provides - in agreement with Klee - convincing evidence about how little seriousness was behind Sea Lion. Kurfürst (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above historians, there are at least five editors opposing 'Decisive British victory'. Kurfürst (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactlly was anything i have just said dishonest, how is it extremlty simplistic; the Germans along with other opponents had been defeated prior to late 1942 in battle in the air, on land and on sea. If you do not want to accept that i suggest you read up on your history. To claim it is a strawman argument is just plain silly, i suggest you go look up what it means; i didnt misrepresent the quote, or the reason why it has been brought up and i dismissed the quote with hard facts - bringing the quote up is creating a strawman argument. At any rate the fact he was just a politician has nothing to do with it.
 * Instead of saying i have misquoted people why dont you look at the information i have thus far provided... 1 source, everything else is what other ediors have brought to the table.
 * Talking of sources that can be dimissed i think Kesselring should be used as a last alternative, they are his memoirs, he was there, he has a POV to push.
 * As for the others provide more than just names, pages numbers and if necessary quotes and we can finally be done with all this otherwise it is just being dragged out with name dropping.
 * Finally the opinions of editors do not matter at all, why do you keep bringing it up as if that was evidence of something? If i believed this was a Martian Victory that would not matter in the slightest unless i could back it up and so far you have done a poor job backing up your position.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Enigma: He's baiting you. Kurfurst: there are at least five editors opposing 'Decisive British victory - a total falsehood'. Dapi89 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ample evidence from the listed authors was cited on this talk page by me and other editors. If you do not read it, it is your problem, but it doesn't change a thing - there is clearly several conflicting opinions on the outcome of the Battle, and burying the head into the ground does not make them disappear. The difference seems to be between the two mindset is that the more recent works by more established historians, who also provide convincing arguments and not just declare this or that, all agree that its significance was blown out of proportion by 1940s British propaganda. This view and the controversy needs to be reflected in the article, and it is not possible to declare the POV of one group of historians over another group of historians while completely ignoring the latter. Wiki is clear on NPOV.
 * Its also noteworthy that you have made changes to the article before attaining consensus on the talk page, despite Bzuk's request to first discuss it on the talk page. These edits of yours have no support of a consensus, so I suggest we return to Bzuk's version until a consensus is reached. Kurfürst (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More falsehood's. Bzuk kept Decisive victory and has said no such thing in support of it or against it. As Engima said its the sources, not the editors that decide the issue.
 * I think I speak for everyone when I say we're insulted on receiving an NPOV lecture from you of all people.
 * Besides, the editorial consensus is clearly in favour of going with the majority sources. I appreciate your intense determination to rewrite history, that's what agenda driven revisionists do, but the community will not have you throw your weight around here Kurfurst. Its about time you learned that lesson. Dapi89 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your personal attacks doesn't help us to solve the issue, Dapi. Kurfürst (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the baiting Kurfurst. No attack, no issue. Its resolved. But I suspect you will try to revert it again. Dapi89 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen Two more sources which support the BoB was not decisively won by any party.

B.H. Liddell Hart History of the Second World War - G.P. Putman’s Sons -New York -Edition @1970 Page 108 The German Air offensive from July until the end of October 1940 had caused much more damage and disruption that was admitted, and the effects would have been more even more serious had there been greater persistency in pressing and repeating attacks on the main industrial centers. But it had not succeeded in its objective of destroying the RAF fighter strength and the British people’s moral.

''.. His words had been there greater persistence and repeating attack!! Means that Germany was preparing and interested in other objective Barbarossa!''

He also mentioned in the same page

“In the course of the battle of Britain, from July until the end of October, the German had lost 1,733 aircraft- not the 2,698 claimed by the British-While the RAF lost 915 fighters - not the 3,058 claimed by the enemy.”

Another source supporting it is not Decisive Victory

Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh C. T. Dowding

http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/11/battle-of-britain-by-hugh-dowding-01.htm

Before beginning an account of the Battle, I must refer briefly to the publication entitled The Battle of Britain, issued by the Air Ministry. This, if I may say so, is an admirable account of the Battle for public consumption But there is a points to which I should like to draw attention. I quote from page 33: "What the Luftwaffe failed to do was to destroy the fighter squadrons of the Royal Air Force, which were, indeed, stronger at the end of the battle than at the beginning." (The italics are mine.) This statement, even if intended only for popular consumption, tends to lead to an attitude of complacency which may be very dangerous in the future. Whatever the study of paper returns may have shown, the fact is that the situation was critical in the extreme. Pilots had to be withdrawn from the Bomber and Coastal Commands and from the Fleet Air Arm and flung into the Battle after hasty preparation. The majority of the squadrons had been reduced to the status of training units, and was fit only for operations against unescorted bombers. The remainder were battling daily against heavy odds.

So it was not true that the RAF ended up stronger than the start! It ends up with many casualties and shortage of trained pilots and manpower in general! This is by no way means the conditions of decisively victorious!! While the Luftwaffe end up the BoB engaged in Barbarossa!

--Hiens (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiens stop looking for support were there is none and making crap up ala B.H. Liddell Hart History of the Second World War - G.P. Putman’s Sons -New York -Edition @1970 Page 108 The German Air offensive from July until the end of October 1940 had caused much more damage and disruption that was admitted, and the effects would have been more even more serious had there been greater persistency in pressing and repeating attacks on the main industrial centers. But it had not succeeded in its objective of destroying the RAF fighter strength and the British people’s moral. .. His words had been there greater persistence and repeating attack!! Means that Germany was preparing and interested in other objective Barbarossa!

If you read what Liddle-Harts writes he states "the effects would have been more even more serious had there been greater persistency in pressing and repeating attacks on the main industrial centers" that does not state anything about German intentions or their plans for Barbarossa.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Germany wouldn't have persistence and more repeated attacks as Liddle-Harts said!! as they continue the battle till may 1941!

1- Lack of Aircraft

2- Lack of Moral

3- Lack of trained pilots

4- Simply Germany have Changes its objective - and not interested in persuade this operation to full extent! you do agree that his words by all means doesn't support the statament that it end up with RAF's decisive victory!! and see the words of Sir Dowding ! he refused to admit the statement that the RAF was stronger at the end and he mentioned the RAF's great causalities!

I invite users to metnioons sources which supportive "decisive victory".--Hiens (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiens, I'm disappointed you restored this thread after I'd removed it. I advised you that, if you're dead set on continuing a line of debate that's fast becoming disruptive and that no-one else seems to support, you might ask for a third opinion (may not be suitable in this case) or request an RfC instead of resurrecting a talk-page dispute that had apparently died down. I regard this as tendentious editing ("repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors"), which can lead to your account being blocked. EyeSerene talk 15:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiens instead of inviting people to provide an alternative point of view to yours, why not just re-read the entire discussion, on top of which there already several supporting such claim in the article. I also think you treading the line of orignal research, you are taking what Liddle-Hart has stated (which doesnt support your claim) and building upon it with speculation of your own; that is not support.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On top of which, the comments you have posted from Dowding do not support your POV either; pilot strength is no indication of the conclusion of the battle. Decisive is a critical point so your are 100% correct when you say "This is by no way means the conditions of decisively victorious!!" although it has nothing to wheater the battle was decisive or not.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

V-1 Buzz Bmbs (UAVs) and Aerial victories
Request alittle expertise from any WWII (especially Battle of Britain) historians:

During the Vietnam War, the US sent UAV's (Firebees) on aerial reconnaissance missions over the North; NVAF MiG pilots shot them down for sport (training). One of those pilots, Nguyen Van Coc has 7 confirmed US kills against conventional jet aircraft, F-4's, etc. (which match US records) while flying his MiG-21. However, in addition, Van Coc has claimed an additional 2 UAVs (Firebees), which would make a total of 9 confirmed aerial kills.


 * In WWII, during the Battle of Britain, did RAF pilots claim V-1 Buzz Bmbs (pioneer UAVs) as aerial victories, in which 5 "V-1 kills" would make them an ace?
 * Is it traditionally accepted that "dog-fighting" and the scoring system that goes with it (five or more aerial victories) only occurs between manned flying machines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * V-1s were not launched until much later (1944). Even then they did not count as aerial victories. A pilot was credited with "x amount of kills" + x V-1s destroyed.
 * The five kill standard is not universally accepted. In the First World War American pilots arriving late on were not expected to achieve 10 kills in the amount of time left (which was the British and French standard). So they made the limit five victories. Dapi89 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-ized or -ised?
Which English spelling is preferred for this article? Oxford English spelling or non-Oxford? One word appears spelled both ways: authorised and authorized. Me, I like Oxford's argument re the zed. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked this was a UK related article. It isn't surprising a yank would go for the "z" :) Dapi89 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as noted -ize is used in the UK as well (and was the historical norm in English). That said, if we're going to commit to UK English then we should commit to the most commonly-used contemporary form IMO, which is -ise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If either form of UK English is available to us, if both are valid, why limit a history article to today's most common spelling form? I don't see the need. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because we're writing a contemporary encyclopedia which is designed to be read and contributed to by our contemporaries. I would have thought that so obviously expressed by the Manual of Style as to not need reiterating. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:MOS has no such obvious expression to reiterate. Both -ize and -ise are British English spellings. See American_and_British_English_spelling_differences. Binksternet (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I just read the cite note and discovered that 'ize' comes from Greek and is not an 'Americanism' (their phrase) at all, you learn something every day. As a Brit I never use 'ize', always 'ise'. Windows language preferences produces 'ise' when English (UK) is selected on my PC. My personal preference for this article would be 'ise'. I guess older Brits would argue strongly against 'ize'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to support Nimbus, anybody British would consider ize wrong as an americanism whatever the text books says. I would suggest using ise as it would save British editors (who only go by common usage not text books) for ever changing it from ize to ise. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Older vs. younger Brits don't differ so much with regard to -ise. In the British National Corpus, a collection of late 20th century UK writings, the -ize Oxford spelling appears in roughly 40% of the choices. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, go more strongly with -ise, demonstrating a 75% preference in usage. The statement that "anybody British" considers only one of the spellings to be correct is a personal viewpoint, not one of scientific observation. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He says, as a foriegner .... coming over here using our words! *grumble grumble*--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My forebears carried a satchel of English words westward over the Atlantic wa-a-ay back in 1700. I think the lot got shook up in transit! Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the -ise form is a continental (French, no less) influence, although most Brits do think of it as British in origin and -ize as US. Ironic, really :) EyeSerene talk 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I $$f$$ote for u$$f$$ing the olde "$$f$$" $$f$$or any letter that we are not $$f$$ure about. So, "authori$$f$$ed". Hohum (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I don't think they have any of tho$$f$$e in North America - they probably got washed overboard (along with most of the 'u's and 'l's) when Binksternet's predecessors were on en route. EyeSerene talk 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Article stability?
This article is almost eight years old, I find it strange that it it is apparently still not quite right, edits appear on my watchlist daily. Can I suggest that it is peer reviewed, promoted to where it might be on the scale (currently start class?) and then semi-protected? Yours hopefully (I speak as a Wikipedia editor, not a Brit) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quickly glancing over the article it does seem there are chunks that could still with some additional referencing, which would halt it from advancing to B class. Although i do agree with your other suggestions; in need of a review and a progress plan.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not really my area of interest (I concentrate on aircraft engine articles mainly) but I see the same circular edits happening over and again which can not be very constructive. It's a fairly high profile history article and deserves more perhaps. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   10:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised this to class B. This has multiples of references. It has clear, good quality images. The prose is clear and expresses the topic very, very well. The article is informative. The coverage is comprehesive and discusses the campaign from different points of views, as well the strategies employed by both sides. Special note of acknowledgement for the info box, at the top of the page - it is very professional and professional looking. Thanks for your time. Ti-30X (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding stability. The article is currently 135 KB, of which over 90 KB is prose, consisting of about 15,000 words. WP:SIZE suggests that articles should not be over 30-50 KB, or 6,000 to 10,000 words. It seems likely some significant changes would be required to fall back within recommendation and ever hope to progress the article beyond B class.


 * The info regarding what each side was equipped with/pilot info/air-sea rescue/tactics could be pulled and placed either in its own article or in the respective order of battle articles.
 * I would suggest pulling the info on the efficiency from the Luftwaffe/RAF strategy sections and moved it somewhere near the Aftermath section in its own ala the Analysis section on the Operation Charnwood or Operation Epsom articles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Am sure there is a guideline around somewhere stating that the wiki is not a library, anything that is the reference section should have been used for citations etc within the article. With that said i think we can safely remove most of the references, if they have not been used to free up space.
 * Also how come the subsections are not displaying in the contents box?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about completely pulled, I'd prefer significantly tightened, but perhaps with their own fully expanded article as well. I'm also in two minds about the biblio section - paring it down to the best references would seem appropriate - I have to say, half of what I use wikipedia for is for finding good source material.
 * edit: Getting 15,000 words down to 10,000 is going to be a challenge though.
 * The TOC is limited with at the bottom of the lead. Hohum (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, looks like I've unintentionally destabilised it! The length of the article is a good point, the 'Aftermath' section appears to be mainly analysis, perhaps that could have its own new article? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the analysis should be pulled from this article and placed in its own, i think there is enough information further on up that could be moved; as already mentioned i would suggest the mass of informaiton on the RAF and Luftwaffe.
 * I could have swore there was a guideline around but i havent been able to find one, what i have found is that the MOS states the reference section should include all works that have been used to produce the article - it doesnt say anythng about removing books not used however i would bet we could trim that list down significantly and save space by moving the unused books to at least here on the talk page as a temp measure. Another MOS point would be that the list probably shouldnt be split the way it is i.e. in four lists.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here a couple of Wikipedia "How to articles" about how to split an article: Summary style and Splitting and Article size (this is a sub section of WP: Splitting). I hope this helps. Ti-30X (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the book list. A long list of books isn't what makes an article difficult to read for our users. The main article text is the primary issue. There appears to be a lot of wordy information about tactics, organisation and build-up, and comparatively little about the actual battle. Tightening the former, and/or moving it elsewhere would seem appropriate. Hohum (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont get me wrong i totaly agree with you; i made a similar suggestion somewhere above - triming the long book list to the ones used would save quite a bit of space i would imagine though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although splitting the book list into four parts might not be MOS, it is far less confusing to the general reader. Take a look at how some good books divide their lists. It would seem that there are different schools of thought on imposing MOS as some sort of compulsary standard; I don't intend debating such issues at length except to say that these are guidelines, not regulations. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Start of article
"The failure of Germany to achieve its objectives of destroying Britain's air defences, or forcing Britain to negotiate an armistice or an outright surrender is considered both its first major defeat and the crucial turning point in the war."

This is not another discussion about the "victory" thing, I would just suggest to replace the word "the" with "one": "and one crucial turning point in the war.". This way it does not sound like the battle of britain is the turning point (which would neglate the battles of stalingrad and kursk), but just one of the big ones.60.28.129.150 (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, i have made the change.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed without context
It says the Mk IIa Hurricane "was capable of a maximum speed of 342 mph", but doesn't explain how that compares to either the 109E or the Mk I. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speed for a Hurricane I was about 315mph, that for an Me109E about 354mph. A Spitfire IA was also about 354mph, so the Spitfire and Me 109E were fairly evenly matched, however the Hurricane (both Marks) although slower, could out-turn the Me 109E, as could the Spitfire. A contemporary RAE report on a captured Me 109E stated that in tight turns the automatic leading-edge slats tended to open unevenly, causing 'snatch' in turns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian contribution
I understand why the Poles are not separately listed - their squadrons were nominally RAF, at this time (althoughI'd like to bend the rules). Other countries' personnel served with RAF squadrons. The Canadians, however, had at least 1 squadron - No 1 (Canadian) - as a unit. Therefore, I've added the Canadians as participants. Hope this doesn't retread old ground. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. 1(F) RCAF (later 401 Squadron) served under RAF operational control. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC).
 * You could argue that many Canadian units served under British operational control for much of the war i.e. the 3rd Canadian during the Normandy campaign was under British I Corps, British Second Army before being transfered to the First Canadian Army once the latter was activated - which then contained British, Canadian and Polish troops. However that does mean they fell under the British flag, they were a seperate force. I understand the case in regards to the Poles; that the Polish fought with the RAF before being transfered to their own soverign airforce, what was the case for this Canadian squadron - in the RAF or the RCAF? If the later they should be noted as a seperate combatant.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Canadians operated as part of the Royal Air Force command so I dont think they should be identified separately. The RAF had many none home nation personnel all mixed together in squadrons so I think it wrong to identify just one. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please disregard this argument of "operational control" or even which order of battle they were in; was this squadron part of the RAF or part of the RCAF?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't dismiss the fact that the RCAF were not acting independently during the Battle of Britain. No.1 (F) was actually a composite squadron (both No. 1 and No. 115 RCAF Auxilliary were combined to form the contingent) and like No. 242 "Canadian" Squadron, was part of the RAF Fighter Command. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

Please define "operational control" in this context, is there a wiki policy or guideline? In Invasion of Normandy, several allied nations are separately identified and few of these would have been independent, although identifiable as national units. Examples are that, at the original landings, Norwegian, French and Polish ships were present- presumably under Royal Navy control, as would be the US warships at the western beaches. In Operation Veritable, Operation Wellhit, Operation Astonia, British units fought under Canadian control at various levels. In Battle of North Cape, Canadian and Norwegian destroyers fought under RN control. There are very few WWII European or African actions of notability that weren't a mix of allied nations. If Japan had been invaded, the RN British Pacific Fleet would have accepted US operational control, so would we exclude the largest RN naval fleet of the war from the infobox? Where is the line to be drawn?

A further point, in BoB there were pilots of many nations and I feel that only to list British participation in the infobox is unnecessarily anglo-centric and fails to inform the reader. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a point on anglo-centric I think it using modern values to the term British during the 1940s the term would have implied the commonwealth nations as well. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You under-estimate the separate identities. NZ was probably the most "British" of the commonwealth nations which were in reality independent states with a common history.Australia was sufficiently independent to withdraw its troops from N Africa, Canada was divided in its allegiance and Francophones were ambivalent for part of the war (I think Canada delayed its declaration of war to emphasise its independence), South Africa's participation was in doubt for a while and Ireland (a Commonwealth state at the time) stayed neutral. If any national group were under British "operational control" it was India, yet they are often separately listed. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree mostly with Folks here - bar the Anglo-centric part, the other nations that fought; fought within the confines of the RAF - on top of which as we have both pointed out various Allied countries fought under the operational control of other countries but that does make them an intergal part of that countries means of defense or offense.
 * If Operation Sealion had gone ahead there was Australian, Canadian and New Zealand brigades within the country, they certianlly would be under British Army operational control but listed seperatly in a combatants box.
 * Now Bzuk you have said this squadron was part of the RAF, but then you clearly state the squadron was made up of mergeing two RCAF squadrons together. Was this squadron RCAF or not? Was it a RCAF squadron sent from Canada to support and fight under the RAF? If the answer to these two questions is yes then i believe they should be shown. However if it was a RAF squadron that was raised then populated with Canadians ala the Polish squadrons, then at a later date - post BOB - transferred to the RCAF then i would believe you would be right not to include them in the combatants box.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The RAF Fighter Command, and consequently the RAF were in control of the air battles that dominated the skies over the British Isles in 1940. All nations including the Poles and Canadians fought under their command. When Norwegian units were being made ready for action, their high command balked at the prospect of being subservient to the RAF, and chose to continue training rather than release their pilots. (Later in the war, they also fought as part of the RAF, much like the "Eagle Squadron" which again although composed of Americans, operated under RAF command.) I have been unsuccessful in finding a source, contemporary or modern that identifies Canada as a combatant nation in the Battle of Britain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
 * It would seem this is a tricky issue.
 * While published sources may not mention them as a seperate combatant it would appear the RAF and RCAF do. The RAF website: 401 Squadron calls the squadron 401 so it fits in with its OOB - showing it as part of the RAF one could argue - however their capbadge clearly shows that they are RCAF. However here they clearly note the squadron was RCAF and based with RAF units at RAF Northolt.
 * The RCAF website 401 sqn and 1 sqn clearly note that this was the first RCAF squadron that engaged with the Germans.
 * The CAF website appears to believe they took part as a seperate force fighting a combind battle: link, link and the last sentance in this link.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: "...RAF were in control of the air battles ..." No one has disputed this, however operational control of a unit does not mean it is not a seperate force. Again i ask you to look at the examples brought forward: British Second Army - British I Corps - British 3rd, Canadian 3rd and British 51st (plus some British and Canadian armoured brigades). In Normandy this Canadian formation was under British operational control in a campaign orchastrated by the British 21st AG (which also had Americans, French and later Poles under command), so they were also strategically under British control; however that does not mean they "British". Likewise when First Canadian Army was activated, it took operational control of most if not all Canadian units plus British and Poles, however it was still under British strategical control but that doesnt make that army "british" either.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did refer to these sites, but did not see the actual correlation that you believe is there. Certainly, all the British reference sources do not list Canada as a belligerent, merely as one of the Commonwealth nations that took part. The Canadian parliament took specific care to not act in "joint step" in declaring war on Germany in 1939; however, throughout the hostilities, there was a ongoing effort to establish a separate command within the RAF. The closest that was obtained was in the creation of the No. 6 (Bomber) Group, but even then, although 6 Group was RCAF, it was controlled by the Royal Air Force as part of Bomber Command, much like No. 1 (RCAF) operated during the Battle of Britain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I cant quite grasp how you did not see the Canadians mentioned as a seperate entity on these sites.
 * The RAF websites show that the Squadron was part of the Royal Canadian Air Force NOT the Royal Air Force.
 * The RCAF website states that the squadron was the first Royal Canadian Air Force squadron to engage the Luftwaffe.
 * The first Canadian Air Force link states "The Battle of Britain parade honours and commemorates the members of the Air Force who fought and died during the battle and as well as recognizes all the men and woman who continue to serve in the Air Force today."
 * The second link states "This parade is held to commemorate the Battle of Britain and honour the members of the Air Force who died during this battle and other battles fought by the Air Force. There is a reason why the Battle of Britain has been selected for symbolic honouring of the dead heroes of the Air Force"
 * The third link states "The Battle of Britain was also the first occasion in which Canadian airmen flew in a Canadian unit in a sustained battle."
 * The British and Canadians, via these websties, clearly note the Canadians being a seperate entity fighting within the confines of the RAF for the battle. They indicate that the Royal Canadian Air Force took part in the battle.
 * You comment about the RCAF bomber unit being part of the RAF ignores the examples thrown your way in regards to Canadian ground forces, they can be under the control of other countries that does not stop them being a seperate force that has the right to be listed. For a further example i would suggest Operation Charnwood - an operation launched by British I Corps, part of British Second Army, part of British 21st Army Group, an entity within SHAEF who was under the command of an American officer, which was influcneced by the Anglo-American joint cheifs and the Anglo-American politicans.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up before in relation to other nationalities and the at one time the battle box used British Empire rather than United Kingdom to describe the allegiance of the belligerents who were fighting against the Axis forces. However I guess that wasn't Anglo centric enough.--Sf (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can quite understand the usage of British Empire as it highlights the hundreds of people who fought with the RAF, as part of RAF because their own colony/dominion/countrys air force did not take part. I have no problem with that, and to be honest i dont think anyone else does.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In both Fighter and Bomber Commands, the RCAF operated under RAF command structure, not as separate units. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Command has nothing to do with it - please look at the examples i have provided; command does not stop them being part of a different military. Even look to more modern conflicts, that have been generally American led but contain other Allied contingents. The RCAF may have fought under the command of the RAF, that doesnt stop them being a soverign air force.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In wiki, we should try to be consistent, unless there are good reasons not to be! Normally we have separately listed belligerents in the infobox when a unit of that nation's forces is involved. So, HNoMS Stord, being present at the Battle of North Cape, justifies Norway's inclusion as a belligerent; Indian and South African divisions (with smaller units from other belligerents) fought in North Africa (Second Battle of El Alamein; a Polish destroyer participated in the last action against Bismarck, in Philip Vian's flotilla (Last battle of the battleship Bismarck); small Dutch and Belgian units participated in the north European campaign, as did French, Czechs and Poles (Western Front (World War II)) - they are all separately listed, although under operational control of Britain or US and fully integrated into the command structure. Please explain why an RCAF sqn in the BoB has a different status in wiki. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. 1 (F) RCAF, later redesignated No. 401 was part of the RAF in 1940, being listed as one of the "the Article 15 squadrons" operating within the command and base structure of the RAF. Problems  existed from an early stage with aircraft modification status (for example, the Hurricanes the Canadians brought to Europe had to brought up to RAF standards), to the need to integrate the squadrons into higher RAF command structures, to  nomenclature and identification.  Basically, the Canadian contingent was treated in the same manner as No. 302 and No. 303 (Polish) Hurricane Squadrons as well as No. 310, No. 312 (Czech) Hurricane Squadrons. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Ok, that was the situation. How does that differ from, say, the ABDA setup where British, US & Australian ships were commanded by a Dutch admiral during several actions or ORP Dragon, a British built, maintained and supplied cruiser manned by Poles or several French warships that were refitted to conform to US weapons standards or Australian warships that were absorbed completely into the US command and control structures? Is there anywhere that explains "Article 15"? Folks at 137 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I think of it, this is actually a really good question. I've always taken it RAF was the only AF involved, tho I've heard TV docs (not the most reliable sources...) say "air forces". And while I've heard of Article 15, I don't think I've ever seen it explained. Could be clarification (with a link to Article 15?) is in order.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  08:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Not to this....)


 * "Article XV" is explained under Australian Government, Article XV squadrons or 485(NZ) Sqn. - take your pick. According to the Australian Government site "For its part, Britain was not prepared to let the large numbers of dominion personnel result in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments seeking to influence strategic air policy. The British retained control of command appointments to the Article XV squadrons and of the promotion of dominion personnel serving with the RAF." In other words the RAF maintained control of all operational aspects of the Canadian squadrons; neither the RCAF in Canada nor the the Candaian government could control how and when 1 (RCAF) Sqn was to be used, nor did they have any control over the administrative aspects of how the unit was run, including pay and promotions. This was relaxed AFTER the B of B was well over. The Canadian Army units within the British army, and the RCN were more independent than the Article XV squadrons and comparing them with the Article XV units is like comparing chalk and cheese.


 * The ABDA setup was purely an improvised command setup; the command and personnel within the ships and the logistical details were controlled by the individual navies, while the Dutch Admiral temporarily controlled how and when the ships were used. Using ABDA as an analogy is, again, wrong. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Having searched in the Australian NAtional Archives I found these Article XV related files; I tried the Canadian National Archive search engine, but it could not understand the search terms "Article XV" or "Empire Air Training Scheme". Minorhistorian (talk)


 * I dont believe that it is wrong to make such comparisons as they highlight different nationalities working within other countries order of battles and command structure but showing them at the same time to be independant.
 * Saying that i think you have settled the debate; the evidence you highlighted shows that while these formations may have came from soverign air forces, those air forces essentially did not take part in the battle and the squadrons from the looks of what you were wrote were basically assigned to the RAF until after the BOB was won.
 * With that said and done, the RAF being the only Air Force to take part should we just leave the infobox as it is - with some explenation of this discussion somewhere within the article, if it is not already?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a brief mention of the command and control structure of the RAF in this period, although Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain and RAF Fighter Command Order of Battle 1940 may also be appropriate articles to amend. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

Dr Calahan's advice column
"In spite of the limitations of the RDF and R/T, Fighter Command at times achieved interception rates greater than 80%. While it had faults, the RAF's system of ground control directed its fighters to where they were needed. The Luftwaffe, with no such system, was always at a disadvantage." I have 2 issues with this. One, I'd far rather know what was typical for Sector Controllers, because a) it was the typical that won the Battle and b) I doubt it was 80% very often. Also, it's unclear to me how, or why, Luftwaffe would have such a system in the Battle, so the comment seems non seq.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  09:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Luftwaffe statement is not really relevant as they were not performing air defence duties so I would suggest removing it. The 80% statement is not referenced you could fact tag to see if a source for the statement could be found but I would be tempted just delete it as well as it is not clear what limitation it is describing so doesnt really add any value to the article at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree; neither of these statements have a reference and the 80% bit was left intact only because I thought I had a source (I believe it comes from "Dizzy" Allen's book which, while interesting, is full of spurious comments on how things could have been improved for the RAF during the battle). "Interception rates greater than 80%" is meaningless waffle; 80% of what? Sorties flown by RAF fighters? Some Luftwaffe formations had an 80% chance of being intercepted? Naaa - it's gone! Minorhistorian (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the article...
A suggestion; I have created a page which seperates the information on the RAF's control system and RAF and Luftwaffe tactics into a sandbox article: Sandbox; Battle of Britain control systems and tactics The title is highly provisional. Thoughts, ideas? Minorhistorian (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image
Umm, what is up with the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.86.252  (talk)  03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultraman
Minor's recent add from Winterbotham raises an issue for me. I don't recall where I saw it (as usual... Milner's North Atlantic Run?), but I've seen it written FWW over-attributed to Ultra, or over-emphasized its importance. (He also, IIRC, credits Winston with allowing the Germans to bomb Coventry to preserve the secrecy of Ultra, which is a myth.) In the BoAtlantic, for instance, FWW gives Ultra a great deal of credit, when DF was in fact more important. In the BoB, I'd say Ultra's strategic value was exceeded by the influence of Y-Service (& its ability to provide immediate, tactical data), & the apparent elevation of Ultra troubles me, in particular when the source has been called in question.

Thinking a minute, IIRC the problem is Ultra Secret is a memoir without access to the original docs, which were still secret (& damned unlikely to be released for publication in '74-5 in any case). TREKphiler <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  04:45 & 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire section could have been omitted completely - it was uncited and there was no guarentee of its accuracy; I have no intention of getting into a debate about the accuracies in FWWs account if the sources which state this have not been properly defined. Simply saying "FWW gives Ultra a great deal of credit.." or "In the BoB I'd say..." is not good enough for debate or for Wikipedia. I added the information to this section because it is available and stops this entire section from being justifiably scrapped; up until now no-one else, including Trek, bothered to add any cites or sources. If there is better, more accurate information available, which can be cross referenced and verified, don't hesitate to replace Winterbotham. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting it should have been removed nor left uncited, only saying this wasn't the best possible source. And I'm hoping a better one can be found. If my expression of my doubts offends your delicate sensibilities, or somehow fails to rise to meet the "standard of debate" here, you have my profoundest apologies.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  02:06 & 02:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have better information by all means replace Winterbotham, instead of being so bloody insulting. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't start off insulting. You began with a "below standards of debate" when all I suggested was I don't believe he's entirely reliable on this issue. Care to withdraw the remark?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole section as it is deserved no more than two or three brief sentences IMHO. It just goes into describing tiny details of who reported to who - that would be appropriate for an ULTRA article - but provides very little to no useful information to the reader... it should be trimmed down and summarized. Kurfürst (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the wording of my reply; what I meant to say is that having spent several hours searching for information supporting the unreferenced material in the section, Winterbotham's account was the best on Ultra that I could find. In his preface FWW is quite candid in stating that he had no classified material to draw on and that some of his account may be incorrect. The problem is that it is hard to debate such things when there is no concrete information to support the other side, except for a personal opinion - after all FWW was directly involved in processing material from Ultra - even writing some 30 years later he must have had some idea of important events he was involved in. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't suggest FWW not be used (& if I implied it, I also apologize for my usual unclarity...). I merely mean to add a "reader health warning" on the hazard of his account. Also, is there nothing on the relative merits of Ultra/Y-Service? (I confess doing no research beyond a casual reading, & then more in re ASW, which suggests the Ultra revelations have overpowered everything else.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found a direct disclaimer to FWW's claim that Churchill knew about the Coventry raid and did nothing about it; R V Jones makes it very clear in "Most Secret War" that Churchill believed that the raid was to be on London and that he went up to the roof of the Air Ministry building (pp. 205-206). Winterbotham also makes the point in his preface that he had no direct access to secret documents and that he was relying on imperfect memories, apologising for any mistakes he made. My feeling is to quietly drop the whole section into a sandbox until more concrete information can be used. If I can find them Vincent Orange's books on Dowding and Park may help clear up whether Ultra was used to help run the battle. Digging up material on the Y service will be another challenge. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh. Sorry about that, Chief. To be clearer what I meant, since FWW's book, there's been a lot of verbiage on the importance of Ultra to everything, & it's tended to overween other important factors (as Milner, IIRC, pointed out). In the Battle, tactical intel (such as Y) would've held sway, & Ultra would've been, at best, operational; regardless any error in FWW, beware undue weight to Ultra. With that, I'll shut up on the issue. ;D (OK, til somebody says something else. ;P )  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)