Talk:RAF Advanced Air Striking Force

Landing grounds
The inability (or unwillingness) of the ground forces to protect the Advanced Air Striking Force's landing grounds was the primary reason why RAF fighter cover had to be withdrawn back over the Channel to the UK. This, due to the limited range of the Hurricane and Spitfire, had an immediate impact on the air war, not the least of which was limiting the air cover available for the subsequent Operation Dynamo. The result of this loss of its landing grounds was the RAF deciding that it couldn't rely on anyone else to defends its airfields, and led to the forming of the RAF Regiment. Ian Dunster (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fighter cover for the BEF was provided by the Air Component of the BEF, and the 3 fighter squadrons of the AASF seem to have been the last British combat units to leave France. Perhaps the solution is to generate an article on the Air Component of the BEF and make the comment there Rjccumbria (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The RAF units were forced to abandon some French airfields early because there were no ground troops to defend them or hold off advancing German forces and thereby give the aircraft time to evacuate the airfield when it eventually became necessary, i.e., when it had become obvious it was eventually going to be overrun. This meant that airfields might receive no warning about advancing German troops until they were almost at the perimeter. So the RAF abandoned the airfields earlier than it otherwise would have, it being safer than possibly being caught with their aircraft on the ground. That was the reasoning behind the later RAF Regiment, they were meant to defend the airfields long enough for the airworthy aircraft to be evacuated should they be in danger of being overrun. It also meant that operations could be continued from the airfields for longer, as the airfield could depend on the Regiment to remain with them until the last minute, and not be called away by someone else for what they considered to be other 'more important' duties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite and expansion
I've put my rewrite on despite it being unfinshed as I'm too busy at the moment and don't want people to make redundant amendments to the old text. I'll finish it when I get a minute. Apols Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thanks for taking an interest. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If we're not going to strike the Ruhr now, when are we going to do it? MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * :O) You might find Baughen's next volume RAF On the Offensive: The Rebirth of Tactical Air Power 1940–1941 (2018) rather grimly amusing. Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The losses figures are inconsistent because the new material from Baughen contradicts some older sources and I haven't go round to reconciling them. Work keeps getting in the way. Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A few more paragraphs for you to read from another Baughen volume. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed edits
With all due respect, isn't WP:own. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Double-checked the 40lb bomb and it's definitely an anti-personnel weapon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The only 40lb bomb I'm aware of (from a US Naval bomb disposal publication) is the "40-lb GP" (Mk I to IV) hence why I made the change. Do your sources give the official name of the bomb used by the Battles; there's definitely room on wikipedia for a list of British bombs in the war and it would be a good addition to capture the obscure types as well as the fan favourites like Tallboy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, it comes from Baughen but I haven't found corroboration either. There's a disamb page for aerial bombs but it isn't complete. Keith-264 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

'Cockpits' meant the pilot's and air-gunner's cockpits not those of different aircraft, apols for the confusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "11 May: Since we know that both 88 Squadron and 218 Squadron supplied aircraft, and there were only eight aircraft (two flights), each squadron provided one flight. Consequently it was not 88 Squadron's *flights* that flew 300 yards apart (there was only one 88 Squadron flight) but rather the two *sections* of the single 88 Squadron flight.)" I fear that with this you have strayed into OR. To save time you might want to consider briefer edit comments and put the rest here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert the edit as original research if you choose and I will leave that sentence alone until I can back up any further changes to the sentence with citation of reliable sources.
 * 04:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out this usage of "cockpit" -- the air-gunner's compartment -- to me. Although I had not encountered it before, the OED supports this usage:
 * A compartment in an aircraft in which the pilot and often also other crew members sit and from which the aircraft is controlled. Also: a similar compartment in a spacecraft.
 * In early use occasionally also referring to a passenger compartment: cf. quot. 1909 "The cockpit for the passengers [on the airship] will be eight feet long." New York Times 14 February iv 2/3
 * Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The cited reference for this 11 May episode is "The RAF in the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain: a Reappraisal of Army and Air Policy 1938-1940", ISBN 978-1-78155-525-5, p. 70, but in my copy of the cited work, p. 70 deals with British strategic bombing plans for the Ruhr and for oil refineries. The cited reference does briefly mention this 11 May episode at the bottom of p. 112, but not in anywhere near the detail that it is discussed in this Wikipedia article:"On the 11th, two flights of four AASF Battles were involved in a rather ambitious attempt to bomb roads around Prüm, in Germany. Only one returned. The survivors reported that the three other planes in their flight had been shot down by flak before reaching the target."
 * Thanks for pointing that out, it is from Baughen, G. (2017). The Fairey Battle: A Reassessment of its RAF Career. Stroud: Fonthill Media. ISBN 978-1-78155-585-9 and I have amended the citation. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

PS thanks for taking so much trouble, you're doing a lot to improve the article. Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)