Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Britain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 11) (bot
Line 94: Line 94:


The current 'Background' concentrates on a possible invasion and the likelihood of its success. Equally import and probably more likely, had things gone against Britain, was the the possibility of a negotiated end to hostilities. This would have had equally bad (or possibly even worse) consequences for the world as a successful invasion would have. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The current 'Background' concentrates on a possible invasion and the likelihood of its success. Equally import and probably more likely, had things gone against Britain, was the the possibility of a negotiated end to hostilities. This would have had equally bad (or possibly even worse) consequences for the world as a successful invasion would have. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:If Britain and [[British Empire|her empire]] had negotiated a peace with Germany in 1940 then the Second World War would have ended there-and-then. Simple as that. Hitler and Nazi Germany would have won. That was what Britain and her empire were fighting against. And they did it out of choice, because it was the right and noble thing to do. It literally saved [[Western culture|Western civilization]].

:BTW, it only became a ''world'' war when Britain and France entered in 1939, as they both had worldwide empires that effectively meant that other parts of the globe were simultaneously also at war with Germany once Britain and France had declared war. They also had large navies that roamed the world's oceans. Hence large parts of the world were then at war with Germany. So Hitler may have still gone on to invade the Soviet Union but it would not have been a de facto 'world' war. Same with Japan, who's empire only extended as far as the far east.

Revision as of 08:07, 29 April 2014

Former good articleBattle of Britain was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 29, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Too much bun, not enough meat!

I suspect that if one comes to this page they are looking to read about the Battle of Britain. Instead, they will find page after page after page of information that isn't about the battle. Information about the actual battle does not start until after 1/2 of the way down the article! And when one takes out the references and such, the resulting description forms less than 1/4 of the article body!

I absolutely believe that some "setup information" is required in most any historical article, but something is very much wrong when that information forms the vast majority of the article. Its as if you went to read and article on the Corvette to find a complete history of the development of the internal combustion engine. Entire sections of the article appear to have nothing to do with the topic; "Bomber and Coastal Command contributions" seems to be far too long, in the wrong section, and I'm not sure much of it even has anything to do with the Battle other than taking place at the same time. Bomber Command was carrying out missions in Europe while El Alamein raged, but I don't think it would deserve mention there - yet here is text about attacks on targets in Germany.

This article requires serious work. Significant sections should be removed to other articles and turned into single paragraphs. I will do this immediately for the Dowding system, which deserves its own article anyway. I would encourage others to apply the same razor to other sections.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! I'm always for a better reader experience, and your suggestions will contribute greatly. I will be interested to see the Dowding article you write. One minor point: remember Dowding at first recommended the Hurries and Spits use a widely dispersed gun harmonisation scheme, but the BoB taught him otherwise, and the guns were afterward boresighted for concentrated fire. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steady on with your Dowding system trimming, it was this system that won the battle for Britain. I could do with its own article though. I agree with most the rest of your comment. Everybody wants to get a mention here Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see your point in complaining that "Bomber and Coastal Command contributions" is either too long or has little to do with the B of B; this is a mistake that is often made by people who know little about the subject: the Battle of Britain was not fought by Fighter Command alone and this should never be forgotten. Read the section more carefully, instead of judging it against whatever undefined criteria you are trying to apply; everything Bomber Command and Coastal Command in Britain was doing was designed to disrupt any potential invasion, as well as an attempt to disrupt either the Luftwaffe at their airfields and bases - often at extremely high cost to the (usually) Blenheim crews - or the Luftwaffe's supply chain. To claim that these operations had little to do with the B of B is completely wrong, while your point about El Alamein is a spurious red herring. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada again

I notice that an editor has moved Canada from being a belligerent proper to being in the incorporated air forces section. I tend to agree with this. I know that his has been discussed at some length before and that the Royal Canadian Air Force did send units to fight and I do not want in any way to belittle the contribution made by Canada to the BoB, but it does seem a little odd to list Canada as a belligerent nation in the BoB.

I have a suggestion, which is to leave things as they are but to add to the existing note that the Canadian pilots in the BoB were technically flying for the RCAF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a recent edit and my revert, I have added a note explaining the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war accurate loss statistics?

I can find the RAF's official statistics easily enough, but I'm aware those are highly inaccurate. Comparing with this amazing page! and looking at The Greatest Day for instance, it seems the RAF over claimed about 2 to 1. Does anyone have a tabular format day-by-day account compiled from sources on both sides of the battle? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find some of the figures you need in Bungay's book, 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection merge

Fighter formations needs to go under Tactics somehow. Anybody have any ideas how to accomplish this? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you could just move it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion vs negotiation

The current 'Background' concentrates on a possible invasion and the likelihood of its success. Equally import and probably more likely, had things gone against Britain, was the the possibility of a negotiated end to hostilities. This would have had equally bad (or possibly even worse) consequences for the world as a successful invasion would have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Britain and her empire had negotiated a peace with Germany in 1940 then the Second World War would have ended there-and-then. Simple as that. Hitler and Nazi Germany would have won. That was what Britain and her empire were fighting against. And they did it out of choice, because it was the right and noble thing to do. It literally saved Western civilization.
BTW, it only became a world war when Britain and France entered in 1939, as they both had worldwide empires that effectively meant that other parts of the globe were simultaneously also at war with Germany once Britain and France had declared war. They also had large navies that roamed the world's oceans. Hence large parts of the world were then at war with Germany. So Hitler may have still gone on to invade the Soviet Union but it would not have been a de facto 'world' war. Same with Japan, who's empire only extended as far as the far east.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Britain&oldid=606297288"