Secondly, on the Big Wing: I agree, Alan, that it wasn’t a bad tactic for 12 Group, whereas it was not appropriate for 11 Group — though as CK points out it often didn’t work too well in practice. (To answer CK’s question, I’ve seen it suggested that in the daylight battles over London the appearance of clouds of British fighters were a depressing sight for the German airmen, when they’d been told that the RAF was on its last legs.)

I think really the BW controversy has more to do with the human drama than the tactical questions — the clash of personalities, the bureaucratic infighting and backstabbing, influence-peddling, all at a time when Britain was fighting for its life and, supposedly, everyone was on the same side. Was Leigh-Mallory just looking out for number one, or did he genuinely believe the BW was the best use of limited resources? Was Park overstepping his boundaries in criticising 12 Group operations, or was he right to believe that as 11 Group was the frontline, its needs came before all else? Then there’s the way Park was turfed after the Battle and replaced by Leigh-Mallory, the fascination of the Bader story, and so on. Bader’s squadron adjutant was a Tory MP who managed to bend Churchill’s ear on the issue. Forget about the Luftwaffe, they didn’t even get a look-in …

Chris Williams: I have a vague drink-sodden recollection of an argument in an “Irish” bar in Vienna in early 2002 during an international rugby league match (the bar was the only place in the city with enough Australians to show it) with someone claiming to be a historian and wearing a Blyth Power T-shirt. Was it you? If so, I’d like to apologise for any offence or damage caused by my behaviour.

The Big Wing was a huge formation of up to five sqaudrons designed to hit enemy fighters and bombers while providing mutual protection. It was argued that RAF fighters should be sent out to meet German planes before they reached Britain.

The concept (and resultant partisanship) was probably as much about the overweening ambition of Trafford Leigh-Mallory, leader of 12 Group to the north, who used it to foster a bitter and damaging debate within Fighter Command with the leader of 11 Group, New Zealander Sir Keith Park.

Leigh-Mallory wanted control of 11 Group and wasn’t happy when Park got the job. In the fine tradition of Douglas Haig, he spent much of BoB white-anting Park.

Park, who, because he was defending the South West immediately around London, bore the brunt of the attacks directed mainly at his airfields, argued that the concept was basically flawed. In essence that the Big Wing spent too much time tooling around forming up.

Remember that early Spits and Hurricanes were basically designed as intercept fighters with very short fuel range. Get up. Have a squirt. Land and refuel.

So basically it didn’t have the tactical flexibility of the smaller formations preferred by Park.

And it was 12 Group’s job to protect the airfields around London. Remarkably, Leigh-Mallory dismissed Park’s concerns. He argued, for instance, that it didn’t matter if the airfields were hit while the BW was forming up. He’d get the Luftwaffe after they had dropped their bombs (i.e. on Park’s airfields).

And Park had a point. For instance, he had asked for assistance from 12 Group on August 26th 1940. Debden airfield was unprotected and Park was relying on 12 Group fighters to provide cover. Debden was bombed with devastating results because Leigh-Mallory’s squadrons hadn’t arrived. When Park wanted an explanation, Leigh-Mallory claimed he was asked too late.

Any takers for efficacy of the BW after 6 September 1940? Brett?

I’ve never heard of Blyth Power, I must confess, but this is a brilliant album under one of his many pseudonyms by Luke Haines of the Auteurs:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Baader-Meinhof/dp/B000024OHX/sr=1-2/qid=1166105072/ref=sr_1_2/203-5070579-0730355?ie=UTF8&s=music
Not so much a concept album, more a song-cycle.

Don’t think he’s done Douglas. Yet.

Time for an obligatory Blyth Power link, since they are the only band I have ever encountered who’ve sung about both versions:
http://www.blythpower.co.uk/lyrics/Caesar/bomber.htm
http://www.blythpower.co.uk/lyrics/Viking/wonder.htm

On ‘Bader was as mad as a cut snake’ – one of my other pet subjects is the ‘Baader-Meinhof Group’ (or ‘Gang’, depending on pov) who ‘terrorised’ West Germany in the late 60s-early 70s. I’m fascinated by them as both a historically specific expression of oppositional behaviour and in the light of contemporary concepts of ‘terrorism’ post-2001. I’d very much like to write about them in the future, but also have sketches for a serious but unusually-slanted piece of theatre about them.

However – who on earth would fund this given the current political climate? Hence the very clever suggestion from my more Situationist and laterally-minded artistic other half. Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, Gudrun Enslin and the rest never, of course, referred to themselves as ‘the Baader-Meinhof Group’. They considered themselves to be the ‘Red Army Faction’, or RAF. (Can you see where this is heading….?)

The idea was/is that we write in grave tones to the RAF and ask them to lend their support to a serious piece of theatre re-assesing the life and work of Baader as a key public figure in their history – and either hope that they don’t notice the extra ‘a’, or ‘accidentally’ forget to put it in…..

Easy mistake to make, of course. After all, c.1976, I could never understand why Kenneth More was, apparently, on trial in a custom-built courthouse at Stuttgart-Stammheim jail for activities which endangered the existence of the West German state, and then committed suicide (allegedly). :)

Yes, Lanchester himself noted that there were many exceptions — tactics, cavalry, archers, ballistae and so on could all have their effect. But he still asserted that his laws were fundamentally correct. It reminds me of the joke about the physicist hired by a farmer to find out why his cows aren’t producing as much milk as they should. The physicist goes away, does his sums, and comes back with a report which begins, “Assume a spherical cow …” Speaking as a former physics postgrad, this is not necessarily as silly as it sounds; making simplifying approximations is generally necessary — the trick is to make the right ones …

Dan:

Google suggests “Per ardua ad Astrakhan” was coined by Michael Arlen (see here, some cached pages suggest it was his telegraph address). And although he wasn’t particularly interested in military/aviation issues, he’s one of my guys, for his 1933 novel Man’s Mortality, what with its world federation controlled by airmen and all. OMG! That’s freaky.