Talk:No. 8 Group RAF

Military history: Aviation / British / European

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

Re: merge

Support--BC_{talk to me} 05:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rationale given for this, so I'm removing it as a hit-and-run tag.
But for the record I would oppose a merge; pathfinding was a function in the RAF, and 8th Group wasn't the only body that did it (though they were the main one). Xyl 54 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creepback

There should be a mention of creepback.

When the primary markers had been dropped, the Main Force would bomb on those. Initially the primary target would be marked with red parachute flares, and remarked every 10 minutes with greens. There were two problems a) remarking caused the aiming spot to wander and b) creepback. In the heat of battle, with searchlights lighting you up, flak bursting all around and adjacent aircraft getting hit, the temptation was always to bomb as early as possible and get the hell out. Since a lot of crews simply bombed where the guy in front had bombed , the aiming spot would in effect 'walk' in the direction the bomber stream was approaching from.

A solution was tried whereby a camera was attached to one of the bomb racks, which took a photo of the aiming spot. This also prevented another common practice, which was to dump the 2000lb cookie (a large cylindrical blast bomb filled with HE) into the English Channel on the way out, in order to lighten the aircraft and gain height. This partially worked, but never completely cured creepback. Instead, Saundby and the others at Aylesbury realised they might as well use the effect, and in later raids, creepback was planned into the aiming point such that the area being bombed moved over several targets during the main force attack.

Id write that into the article myself, but theres no point, some arrogant knobhead who wasnt there and knows squat about it would edit it out again

82.21.207.51 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you’d have needed a source for all this before putting it in; OTOH "creepback" is already mentioned at Pathfinder (RAF), and we’ve had an article on it (with sources) since August 2005, so I reckon some "arrogant knobhead" has already done exactly what you suggested. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up a bit

It's been pointed out

here that there's a considerable overlap between the material here and at Pathfinder (RAF)

. I suggest the reason for this is that at some point in the past the stuff at Pathfinder (RAF) has been copied over to here, so the logical thing to do would be to delete it again. The two are not synonymous, although 8 Group carried out the pathfinder function (most of it) for most of the war. The 8 Group article should discuss the unit history (1st and 2nd World Wars, and both WWII incarnations (like all our other RAF Group articles); the Pathfinder article is the place for the development, techniques, major operations and politics involved in pathfinding.
If there are no objections I will start separating out the extra stuff here (probably sections 2 to 6) and copying any differences over to the Pathfinder article; I'll also add the WWI stuff (such as it is) to here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]