Talk:Battle of Britain

Accuracy of 303 Squadron victories

Additionally, the figure of 126 planes shot down is heavily questioned; it's twice as many as any other squadron, including the Polish pilots of 302. I do not mean to suggest the Poles of 303 inflated their kills, but there has been some confusion somewhere along the way to get this figure. Polish historian Jacek Kutzner, who has done extensive research on the squadron, revises the figure down to 58.8, which is still the highest, but possibly more realistic. Regardless, the figure of 126 should stop being accepted as outright fact. 2A00:23C5:CE18:BA01:319F:B5C2:B534:1C6E (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but we need a reference to a reliable source in order to include that information in the article. --Shimbo (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

At present the article only says that 303 Sqn pilots filed 126 claims and that 303 Sqn was possibly the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron. As previously mentioned, John Alcorn, in 'Battle of Britain Top Guns: Update' (Aeroplane, July 2000, pp.24-29), says that 303 Sqn actually filed 121 claims of which 45 are substantiated by post-war research, an accuracy rate of 37% (one of the lowest accuracy rates in the RAF, and the only ones lower than that tended to be from squadrons with only a few kills, so the proportional effect is larger). Although 303 Sqn were among the worst overclaimers, by a factor of almost 3:1 -- perhaps an index of their enthusiasm -- they were nevertheless the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron (the next best was 501 Sqn with 40.5 kills) and the third highest-scoring of all RAF squadrons, after 603 Sqn with 57.5 kills and and 609 Sqn with 51.5, both these being Spitfire squadrons. Incidentally, 603 Sqn's 85.8 claims were 67% accurate and 609 Sqn's 86 claims were 60% accurate. But 303 Sqn's actual kill record was very good considering that they only entered the battle when it was halfway through. Dowding's suggestion that the outcome of the battle might have been different without the Poles was polite hyperbole (there were almost as many New Zealanders in Fighter Command, Al Deere for one, and they didn't have to be taught English, or the basics of R/T discipline which was central to Fighter Command's effort), but the Poles certainly did their bit. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And do you have any proof of this claim? The Banner talk 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Which claim did you have in mind? I already cited the source for the figures given. If you're asking about national participation, there were 126 New Zealanders and 98 Canadians who flew with Fighter Command in the battle, compared to 145 Poles and 88 Czechs. (Famously, the highest-scoring pilot with 303 Squadron, Sgt Frantisek with 17 victories, was a Czech. Sadly he did not survive.) https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/history-of-the-battle-of-britain/battle-of-the-nations/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Background?

looking at the background. Why the written texts are related first to strategic bombing of ww1, not germans intention to invade britatin with ideological goal? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:5DF:9A77:C364:2260 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the strategic bombing doctrine and the related credo "the bomber always gets through" determined for a long time the military thinking. At first, the higher echelons of military and and of politics did not expect that a suitable and effective defense was even possible. The Banner talk 16:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Lloyd Breadner

Breadner is listed under the commanders and leaders section. However, unless I am missing something, in the summer of 1940 he was in an administrative role in Canada and not actual in command of anything related to the battle. I see no reason for him to be so designated and propose removing his name. To my thinking the commanders and leaders should be those actually in command, i.e. Dowding and his four group commanders. HenryPulleine (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Breadner was the Canadian Chief of Air Staff during the Battle of Britain. So I think he was technically in command of the Canadian Squadrons involved. For the rest, I noticed that he is not mentioned anywhere in the article outside the infobox. So yes, I think his name can be removed. The Banner talk 13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Change to lead

Hello all

I have removed the bolded part of the following sentence: "[The Battle of Britain] was the first major German defeat in the Second World War and a crucial turning point in the conflict."

1) The statement is contentious and not not an accurate summary of the cited source (Bungary (2001). Bungay is actually much more cautious. He says, "Victory in the air achieved a modest strategic goal, for it did not bring Britain any closer to victory in the war, but merely avoided her defeat." Bungay (2001) p 386.

2) Overy is also more circumspect. ""The Battle of Britain did not seriously weaken Germany and her allies, nor did it much reduce the scale of the threat facing Britain (and the Commonwealth) in 1940/41 until German and Japanese aggression brought the Soviet Union and the United States into the conflict." Overy (2001) p. 113

3) It's enough to say that the Battle of Britain was Germany's first major defeat (which is definitely true). Most historians state that it was the failure of Operation Barbarossa that was the crucial turning point in the European war.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's arguable. The argument is that it was a turning point because it broke Germany's remarkable run of victories, showed they weren't invincible and probably most importantly, showed that Britain wasn't going to collapse, which encouraged the USA to support their war effort, leading eventually to the USA's involvement.

A quick google give these two sources calling it a turning point: https://theweek.com/64324/battle-of-britain-day-76-years-on-from-world-war-ii-turning-point and https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-britain-1, so it seems like it's an opinion that's held by at least some sources.

Perhaps wording such as 'arguably a turning point in the conflict' would be better, with a expanded discussion in the body of the article. Shimbo (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the point Bungay and Overy are making is that stopping Hitler invading Britain (or at least forcing Britain out of the war) was certainly a defeat for Germany but it didn't actually turn the tide of the European war. Germany continued to expand in Europe after this, occupying Yugoslavia and Greece and invading the Soviet Union. Hitler's major goal was always to invade and colonise the Soviet Union. Britain was never going to stop him doing this alone nor was it ever going to roll back Hitler's domination of Europe alone because it didn't have the necessary army. The turning point (ie when Germany started losing occupied territory and the war) was when the Soviets starting forcing the Germans back from Moscow in December 1941 and when, in the same month, Hitler declared war on the US.

Sure, we need to discuss the debate over the significance of the Battle of Britain more fully in the article, but at far as the lead is concerned calling it anything more than a significant defeat for Germany is ignoring the more nuanced approach of quite a body of recent scholarship. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a change is necessary. Reading the Original introduction to the original edition of the book "The Narrow Margin" by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster is states:

In 1940 one of the most significant battles of history was fought in the skies over Britain. Its outcome had a profound effect on the future of the civilised world.

Page 8, 1990 edition. The Banner talk 12:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the relevant quotes from Bungay and Overy to the Aftermath section of the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Germany's entire war strategy, as everyone surely knows, was premised on knocking out France and then bringing Britain to terms, so avoiding the dreaded 'war on two fronts' when the intended attack on Russia came. The failure to force Britain out of the war was fatal. Hitler, speaking to Adolf Galland at a medal ceremony in 1940, said that the main threat from Britain would be a naval blockade, as in the Great War, which might compromise the effort in Russia. In fact the main threat turned out to be the RAF bomber offensive, which, by the time of Stalingrad, was holding down more German manpower, weaponry, aircraft and materiel than the entire war on the Eastern Front, and this, in Albert Speer's view, was the reason for Germany's defeat. In addition, of course, a resistant Britain afforded the United States a safe base in Europe, allowing the American bomber offensive and Operation Overlord. So Germany's failure to force Britain to terms in 1940, narrowly brought about, first by Churchill's May victory over Halifax in Cabinet, then by Fighter Command's August-September victory over the Luftwaffe, was decisive, not merely for Britain but for the outcome of the European war. Whatever revisionist stuff Bungay and Overy are smoking (and of course they are indulging in the snobbish national vice of self-deprecation), I wouldn't recommend it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)