Talk:Battle of Barking Creek

Move

Consider moving to 'Barking Creek incident'? Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Under which title is it better known? Drutt (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

P/O Hulton-Harrop - other firsts?

The article mentions he was the first RAF fighter pilot casualty of WWII. Could he also be claimed as the first British service officer casualty as well? I know the Army lost its first man in action (Private Priday, KSLI) in December 1939, I do not know how soon the Royal Navy had their 'first killed'.Cloptonson (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The first British officer killed in action was probably Flying Officer Henry Emden, pilot of a 110 Sqn Blenheim IV shot down by flak while attacking German warships at Wilhelmshaven on the afternoon of 4 September 1939. Oddly, the Blenheim crashed into the cruiser Emden, inflicting considerable damage and killing nine Kriegsmarine sailors. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucking was not OC 56 Squadron

The text "For some unknown reason, the Squadron’s Commanding Officer, Group Captain Lucking, sent up his entire unit" appears all over the web. Someone, somewhere wrote that in a hurry, and the whole world has been copying it ever since.

Did nobody question the assertion that a 1939 fighter squadron was commanded by a Group Captain? Something wasn't right. I dug a bit and found a few facts, but not a history of the day that would stand up in court. So I'm not sure how to go about editing this article.

I'll summarise what I have.

The January 1939 Air Force List gives one officer by the name of Lucking, Wing Commander David Frederick Lucking, in the General Duties Branch but "Qualified at Specialist Engineering Course", commanding No.1 (General Engineering) Wing of No.24 (Training) Group.

The August 1939 Air Force List gives the same David Frederick Lucking as promoted Group Captain w.e.f. 1st April. I have not found anything about what his new posting was.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/modstathan/aboutus/history.cfm contains "On the 6 June 1939 the first two airmen arrived to form the start of No 32 Maintenance Unit. On the 18 September Group Captain V Bettington arrived to Command no 32 MU, and on the 25 September 1939 Group Captain D F Lucking reported to Command 32 MU vice Group Captain Bettington." (Lucking at St Athan is also mentined in Radar Days by E.G.Bowen.)

http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Lucking_DF.htm tells us that he was MIMechE and FRAeS, transferred to the Technical Branch in April 1940, and ended up an Air Commodore ... all of which does not point to a fighter commander, except ... it also says he commanded 214 squadron (a newly-formed bomber squadron) from 19 Sept 1935. A bit of "Googling" confirms that (give or take dates of S/Ldr and W/Cdr, and give or take some mis-spelling of his name).

So who was doing what at North Weald on 6 Sept 1939? Well, ...

According to http://www.56sqnfirebirds.org.uk/officerscommanding.htm , 56 Squadron was commanded by Sqn Ldr E.V.Knowles, from 10 Jun 1939 to 26 Jun 1940 (ie he remained in post).

And the following reads perfectly convincingly: it's from "Tiger Cub - The Story of John Freeborn DFC", the book that heads the Wiki article's list of references! "Back at North Weald, the Controller of Sector Operations, Group Captain D.F.Lucking, discovered that a full Squadron was now airborne instead of just one Flight."

So, it appears that (1) Knowles was OC 56 Sqn, (2) Lucking was sector controller, (3) Lucking did NOT order the whole squadron aloft, but (4) he failed to recall them. But then what? Was Knowles arrested for scrambling his while unit? Possibly. Or not. Should the "arrested" bit of the article simply be removed? Was Lucking arrested? Hardly. In fact, without proof positive, I would not believe it. Was the CO relieved of his command? Not according to the squadron history page. Was Lucking transferred? Yes, we know he was sent to St Athan -- but not in disgrace, merely to a more suitable job (and he did go on to reach air rank).

It's all rather indefinite, but the article (and dozens of others) are definitely wrong. But I don't know what should be changed and what should come out altogether. Perhaps the author, or anyone with more experience than I of editing Wiki articles, could fix it? Wyresider (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just realised something else ...

The article says that aircraft from five squadrons were scrambled, and that immediately after the incident, three people were put under close arrest: the two pilots from 74 squadron who shot down the friendly aircraft, and the CO of 56 squadron, that came from a different base and was not (from anything in the the article) involved in the attack. Without some explanation of that, it makes no sense. Wyresider (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm sorry that nobody has responded to this, from over 6 months ago. You make some good points...I'm still reading through the article, researching sources, and I've ordered one of the books.

I've also asked the good folk of WikiProject Military history for input, so I'm hoping the article can be improved soon. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

article used to be in the external links. (Originally it was http://www.removablemedia.com/northweald/battleof1.htm which isn't online, but I found it elsewhere. No idea if it can be considered at all "reliable", but it could well be where some of the info on the article has come from. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Lucking was sector commander for North Weald so had overall control over all the squadrons based there. The decision to scramble 56 squadron was his but he most certainly wasn't the squadron CO. See Hurricane: Victor of the Battle of Britain by Leo McKinstry for one source. Sadly many online sources have copied the existing article text over the years including several that should know better. Nthep (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I've added a few refs that I could find and adjusted the article slightly. Not really a topic I know much about, but I have a copy of Hough and Richards, which has a little bit and Google Books had a few snippet views that seemed helpful. Please feel free to adjust if I got anything wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A reasonably full account of the action is at Hurricane: Victor of the Battle of Britain by Leo McKinstry (Chapter 4) but difers from the Wikipedia account in some respects. Alansplodge (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen. I was a bit thick -- I had spotted that Lucking couldn't have been OC 56 Squadron (he was too senior), but didn't register that, in consequence, it was not the CO of 56 squadron who was arrested ... so I thought there were more mistakes than there were. Reading the article after AustralianRupert's correction, the whole thing made sense. I was still slightly troubled by the close arrests (and agreed with the contributor who requested a citation), but only slightly. I am interested that Alansplodge had grounds to delete that sentence, if only temporarily. [Thinks: are we sure that it was a court martial, not an enquiry? The pilots were exonerated, and Lucking's career was harmed little if at all (more on this to follow in a few hours).] It will be very interesting indeed when (if) the papers get released. (Wonder why they have not been?) Finally, a special thanks to 86.20.193.222, who without adding any edits himself made so much happen. Wyresider (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not me who deleted the sentence - I've never edited the article page! Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Alansplodge. It was Buckshot06 (thanks, Buckshot06). (I think they call it "a senior moment")
Wyresider (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

CE

Tidied a bit and added some bibliographic detail, rm dupe links. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Radar

The term Radar wasn't coined until 1940, so is it correct to use its name here, when at the time of the incident, it would have been called something else? AsparagusTips (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If we were quoting what was said at the time, then RDF is certainly more likely. Although what was said at the time was very little because it was still hush-hush. However, in reporting after the event, radar would be the term now recognised by Wikipedia readers. WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Spitfire shot down

The last sentence of this graf isn't clear: Hulton-Harrop was the first British pilot killed in the war and his Hurricane was the first aircraft shot down by a Spitfire. A Spitfire was shot down by British anti-aircraft fire.

If we are trying to say that, in addition to this incident of a Spitfire shooting down a British plane, there was another incident in which a Spitfire was shot down by British anti-aircraft fire, it should say so. As is, it's a non sequitur.

Matuko (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Intro - a difference of opinion?

Up until yesterday the intro was marked as inadequate, which it definitely was, and had been for at least a decade, so I expanded it, mostly based on memory. (No, I wasn't there at the time you cheeky...). Almost immediately, my offerings were superseded by a much more experienced editor (@Keith-264), although to be fair they have been heavily involved with this article for quite some time. So, before I meddle with their improvements, I should set out my reasoning and an invitation to debate.

• The intro is a summary, so I would cut back on "11 Group, RAF Fighter Command" as detail belonging to the main body. Joe Public is more interested in Spitfires shooting Hurricanes; he doesn't care where they came from.
• Although the term 'radar' was not introduced until a few months later, we are not quoting from 1939, so 'RDF' can go. Similarly the Spitfire was originally known as the Supermarine Type 300 at the time, but you will not find that detail in any introduction written 80 years later.
• You added "scrambled to intercept German aircraft"; I had written 'possible enemy aircraft', and a dot on a radar screen is just a dot until somebody identifies it. Have you a source that confirms any German aircraft in the vicinity on that day? Your edit implies that the friendly fire incident happened en route to a genuine interception with actual German planes. My foggy memory is that the entire episode was a false alarm.

If you access the Battle of Barking Creek from elsewhere, the pop-up box currently includes all of the above, but stops short (on my computer at least) at "...flying towards". An accidental bonus arising from a little pruning, should allow '...the English coast.' to be brought into the summary. It's a small point, and still doesn't give us the 'Spit shoots Hurricane' headline, but we can't have everything.

There are also some minor typos and missing words etc, which I can pick up in due course, but I want to assure you that I am very much mindful of the vast contribution you have made to this article, over a considerable period of time, and in that context all the above are just trivial matters. Hit me with your thoughts! WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced ;O) I copy edited the lead after I saw that it has been expanded but I'm always open to constructive criticism. Did the people at the time doubt that the RDF contact was genuine? If not then the scramble was genuine but based on a false premise. RDF was the term at the time and radar was a later term so adding avoids anachronism and is why I did it that way round. It's not for us to infer what strangers think. The into is a summary but that is regulated by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section,

The appropriate length of the lead depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article. Too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. These suggestions may be useful:

The length should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words.

Lead sections that reflect or expand on sections in other articles are discussed at Summary style. Journalistic conventions for lead sections are discussed in the article News style.

I don't see the lead to be definitive and would usually have two paragraphs for an article this long, hence me seeing my edits as a work in progress. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any technical knowledge of radar? Me neither, LOL. But I did already offer that a dot on a screen is just a dot, particularly in an era pre-dating IFF and transponders. I can tell you that in a former life my computer engineer used to work for, actually I cannot tell you exactly what he said to me, because if I did, he would have to kill both of us. <joke>

Did the people at the time doubt that the RDF [sic] contact was genuine?

No, they absolutely believed it was genuine. But they couldn't possibly know what that dot represented. Even today, the RAF QRA will be launched to investigate a dubious contact. Having got there and identified it, then they will consider if it needs to be shot down. Back in 1939 we were at war, but time and again aircraft were sent up firstly to find out what was up there. So it was a definite contact, and a genuine scramble, but only a possible enemy aircraft.

Check out the Glossary of RAF code names

• Bandit – identified enemy aircraft.
• Bogey – unidentified (possibly unfriendly) aircraft.

There is a very good reason for these two different terms. WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• The sources I have read suggest that the operators were in no doubt about what they detected.Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  At that time, most of the country were equally convinced that England was over-run with Fifth columnists. Flat earthers are in no doubt as to other things. Do we write their stories as fact, or add phrases such as 'it was their firm belief that...'?

  On the other hand if the chain of command upgraded the scramble from 'bogeys' to definite 'bandits', then you have my support. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As for RDF - what is the term is used by the sources? I think I can already guess the answer to that, but feel free to prove me wrong. An equally good question is why didn't you add a wikilink to 'RDF'? Probably because there isn't one that takes you to radar. That is suspicious in itself. WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Because it's the lead, as it was a drive-by edit I didn't check the body to see if RDF was used. Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies / mea culpa. I was not criticising you for failing to add a wikilink; I was pointing out that no such link exists. That is the suspicious element. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, the secretary of the Tizard Committee, Albert Percival Rowe, coined the acronym RDF as a cover for the work, meaning Range and Direction Finding but suggesting the already well-known Radio Direction Finding, which is a different thing, and a much more widely used acronym before, during, and after WWII.

The situation isn't helped by several radar articles here on Wikipedia buying heavily into that smokescreen, and using the term RDF, whilst not necessarily providing any sources to back use of that acronym beyond the Tizard Committee. Permit me to suggest (for the second time) that RDF was not in widespread use. An acronym, deliberately mis-applied in a few top secret documents, is something to be mentioned once in an article, not featured as the main descriptor.

Moving on; you say that "it's not for us to infer what strangers think", and then quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, but you missed a bit. The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style. We absolutely should consider the ordinary reader, so I am going to stick with my opinion that "11 Group, RAF Fighter Command" is too much for the intro. Both you and I understand the significance of 11 Group, but the article should not be written just for our benefit.

• I don't like to make assumptions about hypothetical readers, I prefer to discuss things with real ones, like you. I also tend to optimism about what readers can make of wiki articles.

Of course I totally agree with you that the lead is still a work in progress, and maybe the second paragraph should cover some of the fall-out from this episode. But that is for another day.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I put replied into your comment to avoid a long reply, hope you don't mind. Early RDF didn't have the plan position indicator, just two oscilloscopes. Getting the article right is awkward because I can't find a source that's comprehensive. Glad you're here to improve the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

According to a book written by my old headmaster, even as late as 1945, Royal Navy 'Dog Boats' struggled on with radar using these basic oscilloscopes. In the Mediterranean, our boys would team up with US Navy gun-boats specifically because they had PPI fitted and thus a better view of the wider picture. I've loaned that book out so I don't have it to hand, but AFAIK both systems were known as radar. RDF was a term reserved for another purpose.

However, you will be relieved to hear that I have now exhausted my arguments, I have made my pitch, and if I haven't convinced you then so be it. I have no problem walking away from this. Let us remain friends. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS! I've just searched the Imperial War Museum site, which didn't exactly flood me with answers, but it came up with A Naval Instructional Film produced for the Admiralty in 1943. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020035

This clearly refers to 'Radiolocation' as R.D.F., and in fact in the clip I have watched fails to mention 'radar' at all, and this is 1943! This is published material, albeit not for actual public consumption, and strictly speaking it pertains to the Navy, who are sometimes known for having their own vocabulary, but it is good enough for me. So, humble apologies; it turns out that it is all the other articles on Wikipedia that are remiss in not mentioning R.D.F. WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Working url

[1] TAMARA MINER HAYGOOD , PH.D., M.D. Malingering and Escape: Anglo-American Prisoners of War in World War II Europe Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)