Jump to content

Talk:Coventry Blitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

copyedit

[edit]

This article could use some copyediting. I'll get to it if I find the chance... Yayro 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me - I've slightly reworded part of the first para on the November raid but the rest looked absolutely fine. I substituted "Luftflotte 3" for "Third Air Fleet" since all the stuff I've ever read on the Battle of Britain uses the German terms. Brickie 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've removed the copyedit tag. Maybe someone had another go before me but the English reads fine to me.Brickie 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma--advance knowledge of bombing?

[edit]

Perhaps this article should mention the story of the Enigma machine and how the allies knew the city was about to be bombed. If the German planes were intercepted, it would spoil plans made to attack crucial German U-boats, etc. I can't remember the rest of the details but it's an interesting point which puts the Coventry Blitz into context. Bobbyfletch85 14:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard this story, the British knewing in advance of the upcoming raid but choosing not to compromise the breaking of the Enigma. However, I have also heard that this is a myth, and that for various reasons, British counter-measures to the Coventry-raid turned out ineffective this time. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_(WWII_intelligence) and serach for Coventry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thestor (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is correct that this is a myth - see the article on RV Jones for more information on the battle of the Beams. Jones himself in his book "Most Secret War" - a bloody good read - states that Churchill himself thought that there was going to be a raid on London that night and had his driver turn around and go back to Downing Street so as to be in the city during the raid. Darkmind1970 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a myth, but a very widespread one. Perhaps the article should mention it if only to say that it isn't true? After all, people may well look up "Bombing of Coventry" precisely to get information about that. -- Narsil 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be an excellent place to dispel the myth. If someone has access to the sources, please do so. I believe "The Codebreakers" a collection of essays written by people who worked at Bletchley Park would be a suitable source (amongst others) but I don't have the book to hand.
"The Codebreakers" is a huge & very extensive American book on the whole subject by David Kahn. It's far more extensive than all of the others.

I believe that Churchill knew. Two good references I can think of are
"Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown published in 1975 by Harper & Row; and
"The Ultra Secret" by Frederick W. Winterbotham published in 1974 by Harper & Row.
Both have extensive references & footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlopez93 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ultra Secret" by Winterbotham is a landmark British publication on the subject and should be read by anyone with the slightest interest in the subject.
Churchill didn't know, as the article currently states. Reference: "Top Secret Ultra" by Peter Calvocoressi ISBN 0394511549 pg75-76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.91.75 (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have a distinct disagreement in source references. Are you willing to be staked out on an anthill if you're wrong? You sound pretty cocky.74.249.77.168 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read an account online explaining a sensational new twist to reveal the truth about the blitz. Apparently, we DID find about the incoming attack and DID try to stop it. An attempt was made by sending a signal to scramble the communications and radar of the German attack. However, the individual responsible made a mistake and sent the signal in the wrong direction. Fascinating yes? As soon as I re-find the source I'll put it up. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Codebreakers is a seminal book on cryptology history but it says almost nothing about Ultra. It was originally published in 1967, years before the Ultra story came out, so it didn't mention Ultra at all. The reprint edition later added a page or two at the end, briefly mentioning Ultra and other developments. I don't have a copy handy but I doubt very much that it mentions the Coventry intercepts. Battle of Wits by Stephen Budiansky discusses the incident briefly and confirms that the Churchill story is a myth. Winterbotham's The Ultra Secret is also a historically important publication because it was one of the earliest disclosures in English of the Ultra programme, but it is inaccurate in many regards. Remember that Winterbotham's role was to manage the distribution of decrypted intercepts from Bletchley to field units, but he was not involved in cryptanalysis himself. There was a lot going on that he simply didn't know. Among other things he credited the entire cryptanalysis of Enigma to British cryptographers, since he was unaware of the contributions of the Poles, which came out later. I'm sure I've seen other stuff written about the matter, all of it in agreement with Budiansky. Winterbotham wrote what he believed to be true, but it was later superseded by more reliable information.

This article (McIver, Peter J. 'Leading Churchill myths : (3) "Churchill let Coventry burn to protect his secret intelligence"'. Finest Hour: Journal of the Churchill Center and Societies, 114 (2002), 40-41. Publisher: International Churchill Society. ISSN 0882-3715, cite per here) also discusses the subject.

This article might be what Bobbyfletch85 is referring to. It cites a book by Nigel West describing an unsuccessful attempt by the RAF to jam the Knickebein radio-navigation system that guided German bombers towards Coventry. This is already mentioned in the article (citing Jones), but if someone has access to the West book, it might have some more info worth incorporating. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, the Bletchley Park Coventry story is indeed a myth. It first gained prominence in F.W. Winterbotham's wartime memoir The Ultra Secret. However, Winterbotham wrote purely from memory and without access to wartime documents. Among many others Michael Smith, one of the most prominent writers and experts on Bletchley Park, has thoroughly debunked this myth in his 1998 book Station X, p. 62. The myth is also debunked in the official history of British intelligence in the Second World War by Sir F. harry Hinsley et al., vol. 1, p. 316-618. See also Stephen Budiansky, Battle of Wits, p. 182.144.124.228.28 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no explicit warning from Ultra as in 1940-41 deciphering of individual Enigma messages was patchy and intermittent and took some time and so sufficient information would not have been achieved in the short time between the German orders for the raid being issued and the raid itself occurring. It was known via Ultra however that an attack on a British city had been planned but the name of the city was concealed by the use of the code name 'Umbrella' IIRC, the name being a reference to Neville Chamberlain, who came from Coventry, and who was often seen in press pictures carrying an umbrella, although this co-relation was not known for certain in Britain at the time.
The British were given short warning of the attack on Coventry by the detection of the German navigation beams crossing over the city however these beams were only activated on the evening of the raid and the British beam jammers ('Bromides' or 'Aspirins') were then inadvertently tuned to a slightly incorrect frequency - the Germans tested and aligned the beams before the attack on one frequency (which was detected by the Avro Anson sent up to find the beams, as the beams could not be detected from the ground) and then used a different frequency for the actual attack a few hours later - rendering the jammers mostly ineffective.
R.V. Jones himself gives the story behind the bombing of Coventry in the "Battle of the Beams" episode of the 1977 BBC TV series The Secret War. The frequency of the beams could only be discovered from the air and as it was not possible to get an Anson up into the air again in time to discover the frequency used and then re-tune all the jammers on the ground in the limited time available - the jammers were hastily-converted medical diathermy sets that had not been designed for this purpose - Jones was forced to guess the frequency used, and he was, as he himself admitted, unfortunately wrong. This is also featured in Jones' book, Most Secret War a.k.a. The Wizard War in the US.
BTW, the British gave the German navigation beams the codename 'Headaches', hence the rather appropriate names given to the jammers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 building destroyed?

[edit]

"In one night, more than 4,000 homes in Coventry were destroyed, along with around three quarters of the city's factories."

Then a couple of paragraphs later is:

"The raid destroyed or damaged about 60,000 buildings..."

60,000 seems very high. Even if you take the number of homes destroyed up to 5,000 then that still leaves 55,000 buildings that weren't homes. What were they?

Is the 60,000 supposed to be 6,000? Or is the 4,000 is supposed to be 40,000?

Perhaps it would be better to say 'half the homes were destroyed'. It's not a figure, but it's the way it's quantified in the BBC Documentary "Blitz: The Bombing of Coventry". It also says that one third of the factories were destroyed, which would make the part of this article which currently "...around three quarters of the city's factories" wrong. The same BBC documentary does say that three quarters of the buildings in the city centre were destroyed, but that's not at all the same as three quarters of the factories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.66.20 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between 'destroyed' and 'damaged'. A figure of 60000 buildings damaged sounds entirely plausible, not just because of the distinction between homes and the more general buildings, but because a building might get a direct hit and be destroyed, but the shock, shrapnel, and fires might easily damage 10 more. The entry on 'The Blitz' itself mentioned a raid on the port of Clydesbank which left all but 7 of the 12000 houses damaged. 121.200.4.108 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC) thosdot[reply]

Casualties?

[edit]

How many died during each bombing raid? Nunamiut (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title vs. lead

[edit]

The article's title is currently "Coventry Blitz". The lead sentence refers to "Coventry blitz" with a lower-case B. They should agree one way or the other. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coventry Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When RAF first bombed Germany

[edit]

This article states "The RAF began bombing Germany in March 1940". This starement needs qualifying and expanding on; there were RAF raids on Wilhelmshaven in September and December 1939.Cloptonson (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was more disruption by banned User:HarveyCarter. I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox with main data badly needed, common for "battle articles"

[edit]

Arminden (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fully agree. I am not sure whether there is a standard agreed for air bombing raids, a standard which would enable comparisons (e.g. how Guernica compares to Wieluń? How Wieluń compares to Coventry? How Coventry compares to Dresden?) Figures should possibly include: 1) number of civilian residents dead; 2) number of buildings destroyed; 3) number of attacking aircraft taking part; 4) number of sorties flown; 5) tonnage of bombs dropped; 6) duration in hours; 7) number of attacking aircraft shot down; 8) number of rounds fired by defending AAA; 9) estimate of worth of material losses
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coventry_Blitz&oldid=1249730609"