Talk:Bristol Blenheim: Difference between revisions

Production numbers

I've found very different data as for how many Blenheim were produced in England: Blenheim Mk I: 1236, 1280, 1330 or 1390 (in article is 1351), Mk IV: 3297, 3122 or 3162 (in article is 3307). Pibwl 21:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Survivors

Shouldn't the article include something on Blenheim survivors? After all, the accompanying photograph is dated 2001 ! 84.130.93.233 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate details

The article is quite inaccurate in its discussion of the design, development and armament of the aircraft. A few examples:

1. The Type 135 civil twin design was on Bristol drawing boards by Jul 1933.

2. That design was brought to Rothermere's attention in early 1934, not the other way around.

2. The first flight was in April 1935, not in 1934.

3. The fixed fwd firing gun was outboard of the port engine, not in the wing root.

4. The use of bungee cords to open bomb bay doors was not used in the Mark IV, this from a personal interview of author Howard M. Layton, a former RAF Navigator in the Blenheim, who wrote "Love and Sand" a recount of his experiences in the Africa campaign during WW II. Layton lives in Brookfield, CT, USA presently and is in his 90s. I have, thus far, been completely unsuccessful in creating an account for Wikipedia, else I would have logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.183 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

and so on. Extensive redrafting of this article is required, from sound source material. I don't have time to attempt that at present. Don Clark 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Really?

"one additional man was taken on board and armed with a Suomi submachine gun. When the aircraft was flying low, the additional crew member strafed the groups of Soviet soldiers on the ground."

Is this actually true? I can't imagine a more useless tactic. Guy + gun + ammo + suit + oxy gear + parachute etc. is going to be maybe 350 pounds. If he's lucky he might fire one entire clip of ammo during a flight, as I find it very difficult to believe they'd be in range long enough to reload. Assuming a hit rate of 1% (which is extremely generous IMHO), every three missions or so you might get one casualty. In exchange, the aircraft has to lose one entire bomb worth of weight and fly into easy range of the ground fire for extended periods.

This sounds EXTREMELY stupid.

Maury 12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

...or desperate...as I understood it, they wanted to add some lethality to the aircraft (more MGs to strafe the enemy with) after they had dropped their few bombs. One has to remember that the Finnish military was in a really lousy condition when entering the war. At some points the situation was so desperate that the military was given order to stop the Soviets "by any means". --MoRsE 12:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Soviet Army still employed to some extent WWI era tactics, and employed massed infantry attacks. I believe the hit chances were somewhat higher then too... --MoRsE 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The assymetrical war forced the development of several improvised ideas of warfare, the most famous improvisation was the molotov cocktail which gained fame during the conflict although being an old invention, others were the adaption of large caliber artillery pieces as anti-aircraft guns, firing special ammunition that created massive (and scary) air bursts (which led to that Soviet bomber crews dropped their bomb loads early), logs were tied horizontally between trees, if lucky, this could perhaps destroy the guns of onrushing tanks. Blocks of wood were used to blocking the sprocket of tanks, in order to immobilize them. --MoRsE 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent review

I would like to enlist other editors in assessing this article which had recently been classed as a "start" and to my mind, does not fit that category. See examples of start articles. FWIW, the example of a "start" article is 1st Battalion 2nd Marines. Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

General characteristics

Did the Mk.I and Mk.IV have the same general characteristics? I'm sure one model was longer than the other. Drutt (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, as my sources state the Mk.I is shorter. THe specs seem to be for the Mk.IV,a nd since it's recommeded that only one variant be listed in the Specs section, I've removed the MkI. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

A much better version of the main picture can be found here. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it know when and where this image was taken? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Crew of 21 Squadron Mark IV YH-L V6436 at Bodney 18 August 1941 Source: Warner, G Bristol Blenheim (Crecy 2005) Plate IX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.121.127 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very useful, thank you. Could this image and the information be added to the article? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Further information here, including a second photograph of the same scene. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Night fighter

I'm surprised that no mention is made of the fact that the Blenheim night fighter was the world's first radar-equipped night fighter, surely a milestone in aviation history. The world's first radar-guided 'kill' was also made by a Blenheim, a He 111 IIRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.242 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

while the following is no doubt true, it doesnt seem very encyclopedic to me

"It is a testament to the courage of the men in these units that they continued to operate throughout these months with little respite and with little of the publicity accorded to Fighter Command." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.73.83 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean - but personally I'd still rather it was NOT deleted. Perhaps a slightly less emotive redrafting? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A question of grammar

I raised the issue at Talk:Mark (designation) because it's of general relevance, but it was a Blenheim that first drew my attention to the question so I'll raise it here as well. What is the correct usage from a grammatical point of view: Blenheim Mark Is or Blenheims Mark I? MrFlibble (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are pedants who would prefer "Blenheims Mark I" but IMHO this is silly - "Blenheim Mark Is" is the "natural" plural. What about "Mark I Blenheims" - no one could take exception to that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Blenheims Mark I is more elegant, and I think it's the 'correct' version. See Post-positives. It's similar to the courts martial / court martials issue. MrFlibble (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I lend my weight behind "Mark I Blenheims" supposing the Mark I is the key part of the sentence. Is there a particular phrase that's troubling, and could it be recast so the problem didn't arise? (eg by use of "aircraft" to form a plural - "five Blenheim Mark I aircraft..."

"Blenheims Mark I" is at best manufactured, unnatural pendantic rubbish. Elegant?? Phooey! To avoid this, I would definitely go for the two alternatives ("Mark I Blenheims" or "Blenheim Mark I aircraft" - but just for the record - "Mark I" is not an adjective, "post-positive" or otherwise (although I concede it is a qualifier of sorts). In fact, Blenheims Mark I is not even "correct" in a pedantic sense. What the hell is wrong with the straight forward plural, tacked, according the rules of normal sensible English Grammar, to the last element - i.e. "Blenheim Mark Is" (but please don't stick in an apostrophe). Incidentally - I don't much like "courts marshall" either - it is really in a different category from "Queens regnant" where "regnant" IS a thoroughly conventional adjective, so that the plural on the first word of the noun phrase is natural. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just the problem. I don't think it fits the "rules of English grammar". This is not my area of expertise, but I believe that with post-positive compound nouns, it's the noun which is pluralized not the adjective. Any grammarians here? (The pluralizing of acronyms and alphanumeric codes is another issue altogether. ie. is it SBDs SBD's or SBD:s? I've actually seen the latter usage online somewhere.) Drutt (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)