Talk:Avro Anson

The map

I notice that while the Royal Indian Air Force is included in the 'Operators' section, India is not covered in the 'Military operators' map. Is there any particular reason for this discrepancy and are there any others that I've missed? RASAM (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref does not support statment in the article

In the section Operational history it says "In June 1940, a flight of three Ansons was attacked by nine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Remarkably, before the dogfight ended, the Ansons destroyed two German aircraft and damaged a third without losing any of their own." The article then references http://www.warbirdalley.com/anson.htm as the source of this. However, on going to this site, what is said there is this: "During the evacuation of British and French forces from Dunkirk, for instance, one of a group of Ansons pressed into service to protect the beleaguered troops was attacked by 10 Messerschmitts, shooting down two and damaging a third before the "dogfight" ended."

The question is, how does "one of a group of Ansons" become "three", and less intriguingly, how do "10 [unspecified] Messerschmitts", become "nine... Bf 109s"?

The other is whether the site is suitable as a reference?

So, is it a case of changing the article to match what's said in the referenced pub., or just deleting the story and ref. altogether? Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Other sources confirm that P/O Peters was in command of one of three Ansons on patrol over Dunkirk attacked by nine Bf 109s, downing one by a forward firing machine gun and one by the turret gunner, claiming another as "damaged". See:

Ashworth, Chris. RAF Coastal Command 1936-1969 (1992), p. 27 Bowyer, Chaz. Coastal Command at War (1979), pp. 27–28. Brooks, Robin J. "Kent’s Own" Aeroplane, September 2011, p. 37. Franks, Norman. Air Battle Dunkirk 26 May–3 June 1940 (2000), pp. 125, 181. McNeill, Ross. Royal Air Force Coastal Command Losses of the Second World War, Vol. l Aircraft and Crew Losses 1939-1941 (2003), p. 34. Prien, Jochen et al. Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945 Teil 3, pp. 181, 187, 189. Shores, Chrisopher et al. Fledgling Eagles (1991), p. 106 Sturtivant, Ray. "Avro Anson: The Chronicles of 'Faithful Annie'” Air Enthusiast Forty-two (1991), p. 43. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nine or 10 Bf 109s is a bit of a question as the RAF report was nine while the German records indicate an attack and downing of a Bristol Blenheim on a day when no Blenheims were brought down. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just the wrong ref. then. Thought someone would be able to solve. Still not quite sure why the article says "three" if the sources say "one of three".

Interesting, though, that there're no more nearly contemporary secondary sources in that list, unless the German one is (Ich spreche kein Deutsch). Just wondering if there's an argument for a ref. to the primary RAF source to which you allude: this particular incident appearing to be quite so statistically anomalous. That's not meant to be questioning its veracity or verisimilitude: it's always the statistically anamolous actions that are the most interesting, which is why I went to look at the ref originally given.

I assume P/O Peters was at least MiD. IWC, perhaps, the greater detail you give is worthy of inclusion. Don’t quite get the connection between the question of nine or ten Bfs and the Blenheim, though. Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There was some disparity between the RAF accounts which seemed to settle on the number of nine BF 109s engaged and while the German reports may lend some validity and are usually accurate, the mis-identification of the Ansons as well as a false claim of a Blenheim being downed tends to make the enemy report highly doubtful. It appears that all of the Anson flight was attacked but that one Anson made quite a spirited defense which, as you say, was not a typical engagement as the Anson was generally relegated to second-line duties as mentioned in the passage. The inclusion of this particular incident appears to be used to show that the Anson could be effective in combat although likely it would have suffered the same fate as other types such as the Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim that were decimated by the Luftwaffe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Deceptive wording in lead

Recently, the following statement has been edited into the lead of the article "By the late 20th century, the vast majority of Ansons had been retired". For seven years prior, this had read as "the 21st century" instead. The new timeframe is arguably deceptive, as the aircraft was still being produced in 1952, two years into the latter half of the twentieth century, and many of those aircraft were still flying into the 1970s and 1980s. I feel that, strictly speaking, this statement is misleading and that readers could easily come away with the wrong impression. The previous statement, being at the 21st century, was pretty definitive, by the year 2000, almost all aircraft had been retired. I recommend that this is reworded, either back to the original wording or changing the 'by' to 'during' or some such arrangement. Readers shouldn't be misled, and I feel this could lead to that. Kyteto (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That edit was me! My apologies, but my life is a little too busy to keep a watch on every edit I make, so I missed your comments until now.

The wording is NOT DECEPTIVE; it is quite deliberate and factually correct. Unfortunately you seem to be confused as to the exact meaning of the term 'late 20th century'. It is most definitely not the same as 'the latter half of the 20th century'. As regards 'many of those aircraft were still flying into the 1970s and 1980s; I regret to inform you that you are wrong. Out of 11,000 produced, there were barely a handful of Ansons still flying at that time.

The last operator in the UK was Kemp's Aerial Surveys, the subject covered by 'random people' contributing to the history forum I cited. Ok, not the best source. I saw the last of Kemp's Ansons, gathering dust at Thruxton on 30th September 1972. The next time I saw them was in 1974 at the Strathallan Collection, Auchterarder, rotting away slowly. And here are photos confirming what I saw on both those occasions.

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1399208

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kemp-s-Aerial-Surveys/Avro-652A-Anson-C19-2/1633624

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1600443

Of course I know that my memory together with my written notes from 1972 are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards, but we are entering a strange situation here. The Air-Britain photographic records also qualify as evidence, and the story in this case is whilst Air-Britain have 562 photos of Ansons, they either date back to the years when Ansons were still flying, or they portray the occasional outings by the handful of museum birds we are left with today. As of 1973, that changeover had occurred, and the complete absence of photographs of regular airworthy Ansons in the years following is corroboration.

I am prepared to agree that my statement 'by the late 20th century' cannot be accepted by Wikipedia, not because it is deceptive or misleading or gives the wrong impression, but because it simply lacks a bona-fide source, unless you accept Air-Britain. But I'm also betting that your preferred version, "by the 21st century", is just as unsupported. Nobody, but nobody, will have travelled the globe checking that 10,995 Ansons have been scrapped. At best they will have done exactly what I did, and counted up the ones still flying. The only difference is that I took it back to 1973.

If you are going to do things properly, you should either find a proper source to support 'by the 21st century', or remove all reference as to how many Ansons were still flying at any given date.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)