Talk:Balbo (aircraft formation)

References?

I've asked for a citation for the specfic claim that the term was used for the RAF's Duxford Wing, but I notice the whole article has been tagged for lack of any references at all for the last two years.
I've never come across it, and the book "Bader" by Michael Burns, which has a couple of chapters on the Duxford Wing, and the Big Wing concept, fails to mention it at all. Also, a google search for "Balbo" (the term) only throws up a type of beard.
If nothing is forthcoming, is it a candidate for deletion? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(PS (beat me to it) I've also tagged the use of the term for the Flying Legends display; is that really how they describe it?Xyl 54 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about post facto RAF use of the term, but it was certainly in use about air displays pre-war, particularly for Fascist and Communist ones that relied on the impressive power of huge numbers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that could save the article; but the use of the term for RAF formations, and nowadays, seems very dubious. I'll keep looking, but IMO those bits probably need to go. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

J.E. Johnson used the term frequently in “Full circle”, but what did he know... Paaln (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 169: "The Air staff had already decided that fighter operations in the south had not been well-coordinated, andt that squadrons had fought independently and ineffectively. They were ancious that RAF fighters should meet the Messerschmitts on equal terms and thought that wings should consist of three squadrons, and that whenever possible two wings should join together into a Balbo to tackle the massed raids. The squadrons of each wing should be based on the same airfield or on nearby airfields, and there should be opportunities for discussions and training together. "

Page 172: "... did not comment on the Balbo philosophy except to say he thought Balbo was quite a horrible term. Despite the meeting at the Air Ministry, the commander-in-chief was not fully convinced about the value of Balbos because of the vital time factor. "

Page 173: "The Balbo was valuable whenever there was ample warning."

Page 282: "Leaders wanted to fly as high as possible, to jump their opponents and control the air battle, and when, in 1941, we began to fight at 30.000 feet it was not possible to control a Balbo of four or five squadrons, and Balbos were not seen again after the Battle of Britain."

These are from a google books search. Problem with those are that lots of pages wont show up because of copyright issues. In the Norwegian translated edition the Balbos are mentioned more times, among others a quote from Douglas Bader a few paragraphs after the Page 169-quote above, were DB appears to want 3 or 4 formations of Balbos to be sent up from Middle Wallop, Debden, Duxford and Tangmere as soon as the radar stations warned of enemy buildup. On the next page there is something about the chief of Fighter Command not convinced about balbos and Leigh-Mallory's claim that he could have a balbo over Hornchurch in 25 minutes, when he himself had seen one balbo take 17 minutes to get in the air and another 25 to get assembled and on course. He was also worried about them gobbling up 5 squadrons in an already weak Group. Please bear in mind that this is me trying to translate from a Norwegian edition back to English, so some translations may be a bit pear shaped... The geist of it all is that there is plenty of mentioning (and possible references) of Balbos in Johnson's book. Paaln (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the contemporary use of the term for the Suxford wing but it's been used in quite a lot of book since. Try a google books search for Balbo Duxford. NtheP (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)