Talk:Battle of Britain Day

Although some may disagree the Battle of Britain Day, 15 September 1940, is still an important commemoration for many British, Commonwealth and other nationals and their descendants, who participated in or witnessed these events. It was also an interesting, often confused and hectic day of air-to-air combat, which is worth describing in its own right. For example, the debates about the efficacy of Bader's "Big Wing" really started because of this day. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Very few people today have even heard of "Battle of Britain Day". I have lived in the UK all my life and had never heard of it until I found this article. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:847A:1847:3221:E76E (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Really - how many people did you ask. The world has a population of around 7,000,000,000 and I suspect more than a 'few' - how apt - of them may have heard of it.

An online article from The Sun newspaper on the 2018 Battle of Britain Day here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure a great many people have heard of the Battle of Britain itself without having heard of Battle of Britain Day to commemorate it. I have often heard of the battle, of course, without knowing that there was a commemorative day. I am from Ireland where an enormous amount is known about Britain and its history (if not vice versa) yet I never heard of the day. O'Dea (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Britain Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I was pleased to see this article up for GA status. It's nearly ready, but there are a few small things that need fixing first.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The quality of prose is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead section is of a good length and provides a good summary of the subject. There are disambiguation links for Berwick, Cormeilles, Preston and Shoreham which need to be addressed. The Preliminary engagements section should be expanded or the small paragraphs joined together to avoid reading through it becoming choppy.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References are used well.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations are correctly placed and used well.

   C. No original research:

   The article does not appear to contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article is very broad and covers the subject very well.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written from a neutral point of view.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   It does not appear to be subject to edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Most images are freely available on Commons; two are pre-1957 British Government images made available under public domain rules.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Captions are good and informative.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold - nearly there though. Harrison49 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Passed - maybe Battle of Britain could be the next one to be worked on? Harrison49 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is one can of worms! The BoB article is around 10 years old and has been the subject of running debates, battles/wars etc. It has calmed down over the last few months, but I think it will be too difficult to get to GA. Its just one of those articles Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Congrats on getting this through to GA. B of B page? As Buddy Holly once sang "That'll be the day..." Minorhistorian (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism or does "unauthorised strength" have some specialised meaning?©Geni (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It should been authorised not "un"... thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

An article populated by good, and in same cases, expert sources should not be using BBC and British legion websites. The charge that the RAF in it's entirety was engaged in this battle is absurd, and not supported by the sources that matter. Coastal Command and Bomber Command played no part. And it was not a decisive air battle. 77.101.14.149 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it made a German invasion of Britain impossible thus ensuring WW II didn't end in 1940 with a Nazi victory, so I'd say (and so do most reputable historians) that's pretty decisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The air pressure snapped off the wings because it was in a near-vertical dive. This isn't abnormal air pressure. It's just air pressure. The power simply depends on the attitude of the aircraft and damage on the design of it. As far as the bomb-release is concerned, nothing in the sources or photographs suggest it was in a spin so centrifugal force isn't really appropriate. Further, there may well have been damage inflicted to the bombs racks, in which case gravity will most certainly have played a part. As per the source. Dapi89 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Dapi89, what exactly is wrong with the phrase 'abnormal aerodynamic forces' referred to the cause of the wings' failure? The force exerted by the airflow was clearly abnormal, since during normal operations the wings don't snap off. Don't you think it's more accurate than generically 'air pressure'? (which is also linked to an irrelevant article about atmospheric pressure, i.e. static pressure, which has got nothing to do with aerodynamic loads exceeding structural limits)

Regarding the bombs detaching from the rack, that's not vague; is plainly wrong. The gravitational force on the bombs is called weight and does not change whether the aircraft is in a spin or flying straight and level. The sentence itself says During its spinning dive, so if, as you claim, "nothing in the sources or photographs suggest it was in a spin", you should remove that phrase altogether, instead of reinstating the gravitational nonsense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you describe diving as an abnormal aerodynamic force? There were quite a few aircraft that could withstand a near-vertical dive, so I fail to see how dive-created pressures are abnormal. To a dive-bomber it was normal. The standard ETC racks fitted to the aircraft were carried externally, when carrying heavier bombs. It is probable that in a mid-air collision they were damaged, so it really is hard to believe that damage, gravitational acceleration plus the attitude of the aircraft would not have an impact. In fact, its possible g-forces were at work, but the only source I have to hand at the moment, quotes Holmes as follows, "His tail came off and he went nose down". No spinning. But, its been seven years, so I'll go back and look at original sources, so it may need ejecting. Dapi89 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The dive most likely played no part in the wings coming off. What likely happened is that the Hurricane rammed the Dornier from behind and above. With its tail pushed downward, the Dornier abruptly pitched nose-up. The sudden jump in angle of attack at relatively high speed caused a massive increase in lift, i.e. aerodynamic load on the wing, which can easily exceed the wing's design limits. That load can only be described as abnormal, since the wing was never designed to operate in such conditions. If you want to see this failure mode in action, have a look at the video on this page: a light twin attempting an 8g pull-up manoeuvre (at least twice the maximum design load factor for that aircraft type). The result is the wings snapping off outboard of the engines, just like the Dornier.

All of the above, in any case, is essentially speculation, just like yours about the bomb racks. Therefore, none of it should be part of the article. I'm going to reword the paragraph leaving only the bare facts and without attempting dubious explanations based on gravity and pressure that make very little sense (and aren't that relevant either). --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

... the date of the gov't declaring it a day of celebration/remembrance, and how that came about (people involved). Too much of this article is about the Battle itself, where that info is more appropriate in the article on the Battle of Britain. 50.111.31.194 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article's infobox records that in addition to 630 British fighter aircraft, there were "50,000 observers".

What were observers? Were they simply non-participant civilians watching from the ground (and if so, why are they mentioned?) or were they some kind of military personnel who, perhaps, provided information to the RAF by radio? The term "observers" is unclear and requires a footnote to explain it. O'Dea (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a pedantic comment, but I think this is a situation worth thinking about clearly. An entire phase of the war turned on this calculation.

The strong head wind slowed the Dorniers, which meant that the Germans took longer than hoped to reach the target, while burning up the Bf 109s' limited fuel supplies. Conversely, the wind sped up the RAF fighters coming in from the north.

Wind speed cancels out as concerns time to close the distance gap, as measured by air distance. If you close your eyes so that you can't see the ground moving underneath you, it won't impact your time estimate to engagement. The flight frame is what dictates this, not the ground frame. In the flight frame, if you are both in the same wind, it cancels out. It only matters as measured relative to the ground frame. I've been doing a lot of work on pickleball physics. I have this difference very straight in my mind lately, so I noticed the suspect language instantly.

The ground frame does matter. A headwind delays the attacking force from arriving over target, so that the two sides come together further from target.

Because the time is unchanged by the wind condition, both sides have the same amount of fuel as if they met closer to target, were the attacking side facing less headwind.

However, both sides are lower in fuel relative to circumstance of engagement. Without the headwind, this fuel state would have been reached by the Germans closer to target. So for the purpose of dogfighting (air frame), they have the expected fuel, but for the purposes of bombing (ground frame), they lack fuel.

Likewise, for the purpose of dogfighting, the British have the fuel expected. But because of the headwind, the British must factor a longer trip home, turning back into the headwind in the other direction, if they wish to land at their origin airstrip (ground frame). If they are willing to divert to a closer airstrip (or one more downwind) to refuel before returning home (modified ground frame), then the wind additionally advantaged the British forces.

If the British are willing to drain their tanks beyond the point of returning to their home airbase—with an eye to landing downwind at a closer strip—they end up being lighter and more responsive as they linger into overtime at the end of the engagement.

Every bit helps when your knuckles are this white. — MaxEnt 01:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• The first paragraph of "Background" is uncited.
• The lead is quite short and doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. I think this needs to be expanded.
• At the same time, this article is over 10,800 words. After the lead is expanded, this article will be over the recommended length at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG, and I do not think the article's topic justifies the extended length. I suggest that information be spun out or summarised more effectively.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)