Talk:Operation Orator

Expansion from PQ 18

Dropped a lot of material from the recent revision of PQ 18 into this article, using same citations and references from same editor. Moved the article to sandbox to clean up and cite the interpolations, glean more detail on the Hampden operation Keith-264 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the position of Operation Fritham, suggestions appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight given to background events

More than half the article now concerns indirectly related events before Orator or PQ 18 were even planned. In particular, Operations Benedict and Fritham each have their own dedicated articles.

At the same time, PQ 18 is barely mentioned. Hence the "undue weight" section tags.

Grant | Talk 08:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the editor who broke apart paragraphs conciliate those edits with the citations. Keith-264 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind provisionally about editing this article and had altered some recent edits according to BRD. Happy to discuss.Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

a joint Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing to north-west Russia, this isn't true, it was an RAF wing of 18 Group RAF Coastal Command and contained an Article XV squadron under RAF command, which was not exclusively Australian. If anyone wants more emphasis on the Australian character of the squadron in this article then I suggest that the body of the article is a better place for it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

CE

@Grant65: I added this to my comment on the project page.

Would someone with rollback rights restore the article to the state before Grant 65s edit of 09:01, 17 May 2018 please? Many of his changes are uncontroversial and there are welcome additions based on new sources but have been botched in the execution and I've found that piecemeal remedies are impossible (see edit history, it's like trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again).‎ There is an irrelevant emphasis on the Australian nature of 455 Squadron (dropped into the lead of all places) that would be better discussed in a note. Many paragraphs had been broken and spread around the article with no citations, headers altered to become so vague as to lose meaning, there are typos all over the place and some of the material moves are anachronistic or break thematic sections, rendering them pointless. A rollback will help all interested parties incorporate the new material better, avoid disorganising the structure and easily gain consensus on most of the new material. I have provisionally changed the article to C Class as this seems the article's level. Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The details in the Fritham and Benedict sections are excessive now that their articles have been revised but the Fritham article is incomplete due to the late arrival of a source and me being on a course for the last three weeks. Its revision needs to be completed before a reduction of its article here to a paragraph or so to avoid mistakes of emphasis. Keith-264 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a start on re-incorporating Grant's new material and am by no means wedded to the existing structure; I would prefer it to remain until all the new material has been added to avoid confusion. The Benedict and Fritham sections have become less necessary because of the revision of their article pages so I will trim them, perhaps into one section. All open to discussion with interested parties. Laters Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Cut Fritham down to size, not sure if it's needed. Remembered that Benedict et al. are intended to be pasted into their articles, hence the one-size-fits-all approach. Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Coastal Command"

While I introduced the term Coastal Command to the article, upon reflection I do not believe that it is applicable to maritime strike units, personnel and aircraft stationed in Russia. That is, the Search & Strike Force was a detachment.

Firstly, while Coastal Command sometimes controlled stations as far away as Gibraltar and West Africa, I don't see how the coastal waters of the USSR can have been within its official remit. 18 Group's specific area of responsibility appears to have included all areas south-east of Iceland and west of North Cape, but not the Barents Sea. Just as maritime strike/patrol operations off North America were a RCAF/USAAF responsibility. And other theatres were the responsibility of the countries concerned, or other British/joint commands (e.g. RAF Middle East Command, which later gave way to the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces).

Secondly, 144 Sqn and 455 Sqn were a part of the Search & Strike Force because they operated long-range torpedo bombers. The role was not filled by (say) RAF Bomber Command or the USAAF, even though both operated aircraft with the range and torpedo capability, because they seldom carried out such operations. It could not have been filled by the Fleet Air Arm or US Navy in 1942, because at the time neither had torpedo bombers with the range of the Hampden.

Thirdly, the Search & Strike Force clearly included personnel and equipment from outside Coastal Command, such as 1 PRU.

Grant | Talk 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems conclusive to me; was the S&SF a formal title or one used for the operation? I've been looking at other sources but only found some material in the Canadian OH about torpedo bombing in general. Keith-264 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've altered the lead to reflect your findings and changed a heading to make the S&SF explicit and edited the text to give more emphasis to its composition. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Made more changes to concentrate more of the article on Orator. I'll take a break now, perhaps you could decide the next part of the article you want to revise? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Found a passage in the AOH and a fantastic map. Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2005 edition of Schofield and Nesbit had got rather more than I thought so the Orator section is getting an expansion. Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

From memory "Search & Strike Force" appears in a couple of places, including the bio of Hopps at RAFWeb.org (a.k.a. Air of Authority).

There are Russian language sources on the web regarding Orator that could be integrated, although it means relying on Google Translate etc

I have just recovered my copy of Gordon's Strike and Strike Again: 455 Squadron RAAF, 1944-45, which (despite the title) has some details of Orator, although the index isn't very good.

Grant | Talk 05:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved Gordon to Further reading for the meantime, do you think that the article is ready for re-assessment? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved Orator to the top of the Analysis section since that's what the article is about and shortened some sentences. Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Schofield and Nesbitt make no bones about it being a Coastal Command gig, as do several other sources and that the detachment from Coastal Command had attachments from the PRU to create the S&SF. I'd include the 9 Hampdens lost in transit in the infobox to make 41 not 32. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

@Grant, can your sources provide the citations needed? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Bolding

Apparently bolding with ; is deprecated because machine readers can't read it, Xyz is preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nowrap

RM nowrap as it was stretching the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)