Talk:German bombing of Britain, 1914–1918

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 19, 2021.

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Starting comment

Just starting this off, as a complete newbie. I've got some reasonable material on the subject so hope to expand in due course - any comments, etc welcome. Scoop100 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Casualties

According to historian Stephen Budiyansky ('Air Power', Viking, 2004) total German raids on Britain in WW I inflicted 1,400 deaths and 4,800 injuries with property damage of 2 million Pounds. The figures do not distinguish between Zeppelin and Gotha or Giant attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.142.1 (talk • contribs) 19 October 2007

Title

Perhaps this ought to be at German strategic bombing of England during World War I. —Srnec (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) :Disagree. If anything, the material from the German article should be merged into this article to create a single article, but there is enough here about the other strategic bombing campaigns. If the content was merged the material on the German campaign would swamp the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "German article" are you talking about? Srnec (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, being stupid (nothing new there), I thought this post was on the talkpage for Strategic Bombing in WWI. I still disagree though: I agree that the article is almost exclusivly about the camapaigns against England, & made an effort to put in what I could find about other fronts. Which wasn't very much, but I imagine that there is more out there. I used to have acopy of The German Giants, which might have something on theur use on the Eastern Front, but foolishly lent it to somebody.TheLongTone (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humberside

Humberside did not exist during WW1 and doesn't exist now. So the sentence, "Two Zeppelins targeted Humberside but were diverted by strong winds, and dropped their bombs on Great Yarmouth, Sheringham, King's Lynn and the surrounding villages.", is inaccurate from both a historical and current geographical viewpoint. The original targets may have been Hull docks or Grimsby docks or Scunthorpe steelworks or even Brough aircraft factory, but it certainly wasn't Humberside. 93.155.221.246 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The river Humber had, and still has, banks.

Joimes

"More bombs were dropped on Brixton before crossing the river and dropping 10 joimes on Leyton, killing another eight people and injuring 30." I'm unsure what a 'joime' is, google is also unaware of "joimes". It may be a misspelling of 'bombs', but the physics of typist's fingers is beyond my comprehension. 93.155.221.246 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could have corrected this obvious typo, but consider yourself above actually being constructive because you are a snecking higher being.TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:It is far better to face the bullets.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:It is far better to face the bullets.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 11, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-11-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A 1915 recruitment poster for the British Army, using the spectre of German strategic bombing to tell potential recruits that "It is far better to face the bullets than to be killed at home by a bomb."

Between 1915 and 1918, German bombings of Britain—at first using rigid airships but later using aeroplanes—killed more than 1,300 people and injured over 3,000. Concern for the defence against the raids ultimately led to the creation of the Royal Air Force on 1 April 1918.Illustration: Publicity Department, Central Recruiting Depot; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

Why use HTML br element to separate "nightclothes" sentence?

I don't understand why the sentence about nightclothes for women is separated by a <br> instead of either being part of the previous paragraph (which would be my choice) or being a separate paragraph unto itself. But clearly someone did this deliberately, which is why I'm bringing it up here rather than just changing it. Michael Hurwicz (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only occurrence over Wales - something to look up

I would like to draw attention that the village of Buttington near Welshpool had a distinction of being scene of the only WWI air raid on Wales, according to a book I read titled 'The Welsh Marches' (author forgotten, was reading in 1970s), when a Zeppelin dropped a few bombs without causing casualties then turned back towards England. It would be interesting if, with benefit of published citation, it could be added. I also forget the exact date the anecdote stated, which might have set it in context with one of the raids on Britain already described in this article.Cloptonson (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Slowly filling gaps and removing cn tags. Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@Nigel Ish: Thanks for the sfns, I was contemplating altering the article to sfn but that's because it's the only system I really know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I can work in both ref /ref and sfn. I keep ref in use for short cites that don't fit the sfn format because author or date or page numbers are absent (eg anonymous works, web pages). sfn is particularly useful when faced with a load of {{rp}} in an article because I can pull off a find/replace trick on the text. List defined refs are a liability though and should be deprecated.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"List defined refs", don't know what these are....Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic bombing during World War I

It would be nice to work in a link back to this article. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move

As there's a lot of narratie about bombing of Britain and next to nothing about other campaigns, I've altered the title, better to reflect the content. I removed "strategic" because both sides didn't really know what they were doing at first. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I'm still unsure of a consistent method of breaking up the large slabs of text in the article beyond month-year but I think I have enough sources to finish off the re-edit for B-class rating. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snapped up a cheap copy of Cole and Cheeseman and will resume work once it arrived. Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: Please don't tamper with sources that are different editions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]