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. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia was fighting for UK 176.10.139.75 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

true, and that article states that as such. The Banner talk 20:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As well as summary in the Allies section, which mentions Czechoslovakia, there's an article on Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain, which has a section on Czech pilots which goes into further detail. If there's any further sourced details to add they should go in the Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain article. Shimbo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland in the Belligerents box

I do not believe Poland should be included in the Belligerents box. Although Polish pilots were instrumental to the defeat of the Luftwaffe, the actual Polish state had capitulated at this point. Also, Czechoslovakian and French pilots served a major part in the campaign, yet they are not present in the box.

I suggest moving 'Polish Armed Forces in the West' to the 'Units involved' section instead. 109.158.87.3 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree fully. 86.145.154.160 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 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)