Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This item is giving me some difficulty. There is a picture in Beaches, fields, streets and hills which William Foot identifies as a Ruck Machine Gun Post (figure 74 on page 154), this has embrasures pointing straight up. However, the Defence of Britain database identifies only three Rucks and this is not one of them. The DoBDB examples are:
William Foot identifies the example at Reighton as a Stanton shelter -- I dare-say that is correct because it does not appear to have any embrasures, but does have a large window at one end -- on the other had it is in a poor state. I have been to visit the one at Sandiacre for myself and will post some pictures soon, it looks just like the Reighton example but with a row of small windows which might be interpreted as embrasures.
Can anybody shed some light on this? Gaius Cornelius 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Have looked in William Foots book, the example at Reighton is not constructed from Stanton shelter sections. In the Mike Osbourne book `20th Century Defences in Britain, The East Midlands` on page 67 he shows the Ruck Pillbox at Sandiacre. (Palmiped 09:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC))
does the Thornycroft Bison fit within the scope of this article? GraemeLeggett 09:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
theres one at Bovington if memory serves me right - the story of my camera being with the pram and not in my hands while I was there is not worth repeating. GraemeLeggett 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
confirmation here with pics GraemeLeggett 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Added to the list of ships the Royal Navy would lay on the 13 [I think] aircraft carriers, some admittedly obsolete, that were knocking around with the home fleet in 1939-1940.
"Image:British_Home_Guard_Improvised_Weapons.JPG", can we identify some of what these were meant to do. I see a simple projector, an improvised petrol bomb using celluloid film as the wick etc. GraemeLeggett 11:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Have looked in book `Secret Agent`s Handbook of Special Devices` published by the Public Records Office ISBN 1903365007 but none of the items shown are listed. (Palmiped 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC))
What was the cost of these defences I have seen a figure of over £21 million quoted for all commands? Palmiped 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ref- PRO: WO 199/48, 6a Palmiped 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that these guys are not mentioned in this article, i know they gave grenade throwing classes in hyde park before being coopted into the offical projects (Mi5 did not like them the pinko's). If i find anything i'll add it but its not area of knowledge. Great article people, keeping such information alive is EXACTLY the point of wikipedia, thanks for all the work.Hypnosadist 12:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Damage to the roof of the Gotham pillbox SK 523302 has exposed scrap metal including a bed frame, used as roof reinforcement- Photos of Gotham pillbox
Great article on an interesting topic but too long at present; at times it feels more like a list. Could you move some of the detail eg the types of pill box into a separate article? Nickhk 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Type 22
The type 22 pillbox is a regular hexagon in plan with an embrasure in five of the sides and an entrance in the other. The embrasures are suitable for rifles or light machine guns. Some have a low entrance that allows an extra embrasure above. Each wall is about 6 feet (1.8 m) long and it was generally built to the bullet proof standard of 12 inches (30 cm) thick, although 'tank-gun proof' versions with walls around 1 m thick were also built (e.g. the granite and concrete examples on the Cowie Line in Kincardineshire). Internally there is a Y- or T- shaped anti-ricochet wall (the top of the Y/T nearest the entrance), the internal wall also helps support the roof.
I have modified the introduction because it is easy to discount invasion scares when the feared invasion did not happen. The fear and the threat may have been no less real for that. Indeed, it is not unknown for even successful invasions such as the French-sponsored one by Henry Tudor on 1485 to be 'air-brushed' out of history by the winners who wish to appear legitimate.
If there had not been serious threats of invasion, there would have been fewer forts round Portsmouth, Martello towers, underground galleries at Dover, Tudor artillery forts, between Falmouth and Berwick; coastal castles at Dover, Carisbrooke and so on. This says nothing about the vast amount spent over the centuries on the Navy as a first line of defence. The threats were real; the fear was real otherwise they would not have spent so much money on averting them. The fact that the expenditure had the desired effect should not be taken to mean that it was always unnecessary. (RJP 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
I was eight years old when WWII began, living in Hastings. A few years back I came across the copy of an instruction (in a book?) telling the civilian population that it was necessary to move as many people as possible away from the South Coast towns to lessen the casulaty rates in case of invasion. Our family moved away from the coast in May 1940, possibly in response to that injunction. There was, I believe, a cash payment to cope with the costs of that move. I wonder if there might be a way to include that. Peter Shearan 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Without British air superiority, the navy would not have been of much use in the event of an invasion. Enemy air superiority even local and temporary, is death to ships. Consider HMS Prince of Wales (1939) and HMS Repulse (1916). Consider also The Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway, or the key role of aviation in sinking the Bismarck. These aircraft were working well off the home shore. In most of these cases the air forces were rather weak and scanty and way out at sea. What would have happened in the narrow seas on the doorstep of the multitude of Luftwaffe stations in Belgium and northern France had the RAF been effectively confined to north of the Thames Valley.?
Hmm, serendipity:
No doubt more if you care to look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and thought-provoking response. In Norway, the Luftwaffe was a long way from home; advancing and fighting at the same time. It had not had time to establish flying stations close to the scene of action. The case was rather similar though at a less extended range, in the southern North Sea in mid 1940. It was not so, in late 1940 when the time needed for the assembly of an invasion force and to suppress the RAF gave time to man the already-existing airfields and time for planning.
The point about the Luftwaffe's equipment is more telling. Though their range was short, its JU57s were tactical bombers suited to attacking small, un-armoured targets. That is what destroyers moving south from Harwich would have been. By late 1940, the Luftwaffe had had some practice in attacking ships and the time to reconsider tactics. Smaller vessels such as minesweepers would have been no match for the Bf 110s.
The capital ships were another matter. The lack of air-launched torpedoes, so far as it existed, precluded an attack such as that against the Repulse and Prince of Wales. However, the Luftwaffe found a way of air-launching V1s and torpedoes from the He 111. Given the incentive, it was capable of finding a way of doing the same with torpedoes, though would have been hard-pressed to do it in time for Seelöwe. The Kriegsmarine had a few submarine torpedo launchers of its own. It would not have been difficult to co-ordinate them with aerial recognisance to place them in a suitable position for causing damage, particularly with the battle fleet's destroyer screen disrupted by aerial attack.
Göring's limited view of the use of air power did get him into trouble. One fault was the lack of heavy bombers which was not relevant here. He had not thought through to the need for maritime use of the Luftwaffe so was rather surprised when the need presented itself but a few feints to bring the RN out or even attacks in harbour, would have greatly depleted its capacity to defend convoys so that Britain would have been brought down for lack of materiel
Yes, the invasion fleet was fragile but there was no need to expose it to an extent greater than that needed to bring out the British fleet. At this stage, Germany had no other enemy. It need not have set Barbarossa in motion and the USSR would not have interfered. It need not have declared war on the USA and that country would not have interfered beyond selling a few arms which would probably have been sunk in transit. That would have left the countries of the British Empire with no means of interfering owing to a lack of sea power and shipping. (RJP 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
Could we please get some more detail of the Br Army preparations, the status of divisions manning, training, equipment, amount of armour, VII Corps etc etc? Buckshot06 07:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for information on the remaining three red link stoplines and came across this. Does this qualify as fair use? Thanks, RHB 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Should it be passed through this seeing as its certified as A-class? RHB 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:
Well done, the GA has passed successfully.
Reviewer's notes:
Well done to all involved - this is a really excellent article. My only suggestion for improvement might be that the opening and background section could have a few more references, but as these are probably given in the linked articles and are not the main content of the article, this is not a problem. Bob talk 13:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The Alanbrooke quote in the section Would the preparations have been effective? says 'italics in original' but it is all in italics! Which is the section for emphasis? Kim dent brown 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I missed it, but can we get content about the so-called "zero stations" into this article? I know there's one near where I used to live (here) but don't know anything more about them than the linked article says. Anyone able to enlighten me or point me to an article about them? Cheers Dick G (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the Maunsell Forts be included within this article? – Zntrip 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Big topic; but it'd be worth adding something about the use and upgrading of 19th century fortifications, notably Portmouth harbour defences such as the Palmerston forts and Gosport lines. 213.249.221.34 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to the editors of this article. Lots of great information... ...but there need to be far more citations of the information. 2-3 consecutive paragraphs in a row is too many. Please add to it before this article is nominated for removal as failing to meet FA criteria (running the semi-automated peer review wouldn't be bad either). 131.44.121.252 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Check Links Palmiped (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be more about the affect of the Battle of Britain on the invasion preparations. The Germans lost control of the air battles when they switch from bombing airfields to bombing London and other non-military targets. This occurred due to either an errant or purposeful German Bombing of London that caused a British bombing of Berlin. Hitler than ordered major British cities to be bombed with special emphasis on wiping out London. This allowed the British to rebuild and enhance airfield defences and not lose more aircraft to night bombing raids. Because of Hitler's tactic change, there was enough British aircraft to fight the Battle of Britain in the first place. (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Bravo to all the contributors for such a well-written, well-researched article. I have two small proposals for the end. At least based on the encyclopedias I use, I think that the subtitles "The threat recedes" and "Would the preparations have been effective?" do not have the formal tone that is often used in encyclopedias. Instead of "The threat recedes", might I suggest a subtitle that does not start with an article. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that titles should not start with articles (e.g., instead of "The History of France", use "History of France"). Granted, the Manual is referring to article titles, but it seems that the principle could be extended to subtitles. For the rhetorical question at the end, could I suggest the simpler subtitle "Analysis" or "Historical analysis".Nazamo (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"American broadcaster William Shirer recorded large numbers of burns victims in Berlin" Is "burns victims" (as opposed to "burn victims") a British usage that I'm not used to, or is it a typo? I'm loth to make even small non-obvious changes with a FA, especially the one on the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
But not in the "wider world" of the United States. I looked at first three pages of the Google link to the phrase "burns victims", and the references all seemed to be from the United Kingdom. Usage in the United States is "burn victim" ("burn victims" in the plural), whether the victim has one burn or many. In any case, all of us understand what the William Shirer sentence meant.--JGC1010 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another addition, technically an older defence I suppose, is perhaps the plan to flood the Romney Marsh. The Romney Marsh was a likely target of invasion. In the event of invasion, the Royal Military Canal would be diverted and the marsh flooded, thus drowning the invasion force. I'm unsure whether similar preparations were made elsewhere in Britain, but it seems worthy of inclusion, especially since there doesn't seem to be any similar example in the article presently. There is a brief mention of some flooding to slow down tanks, but it doesn't seem to do the subject justice. Here's a source to get someone started :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/83/a4967283.shtml
Shackleton (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather a local subject, so google didn't yield many results. If I remember, I'll drop into the Canterbury library and see if they have anything on it. Shackleton (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Shackleton (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This operation preempted Britain's plan to invade Norway for protective purposes. This statement is followed by a reference, but unless I've read it too quickly, only refers to the absence of such plans, supposedly being an excuse for the Nazis to invade Norway first. Could anyone shed a light on this? -- MiG (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone comment on this. It is from my article on Eglinton Country Park. Thanks.Rosser (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What does Ironside refer to? The term is mentioned several times in the article but it's not in the dictionary and if you look for Ironside it is not clear what is meant in the article.--Soylentyellow (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I am intending to add a paragraph on the war time measures implemented by the British police. The only problem, is that I am not sure where to insert it without it looking out-of-place. It can all be sourced well, because the information is out of a book I am reading. Does anyone have any suggestions on where it should go? Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"In June 1940 the British Army had 22 infantry divisions and one armoured division"
By June 1940 am pretty sure that there was more than 1 armoured division in the British Armys order of battle. The 1st and 7th Armoured divisions had long well been activated, the latter under various names and at various stregnths since 1938, and i believe the 2nd Armoured Division had also been activated.
So a total of 3, with one serving abroad. If the information is available it should probably also be noted how many indy armoured/tank brigades were also available as they projected a large number of tanks and were pretty powerful formations (when used properly).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder whether the lead section could do with summarising the article just a little more, per WP:LEAD? This would then keep it looking up to standard with the more recent military history FAs such as [Military history of Australia during World War II]]. Bob talk 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a great article. But it feels like it needs a map of the stop lines - either here or in the stop line articles. It's pretty hard for me to visualise where they run, and I'm a brit. 84.92.32.221 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"In June 1940 the British Army had 22 infantry divisions and one armoured division."
Where do these figures come from ? As far as tank divisions go they do not agree with what either Winston Churchill or J.R.M Butler quote--JustinSmith (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that whenever I read the section (in this article) on the British Army I think it`s contradictory to such an extent that it`s almost meaningless. Could we not have some consensus and edit it to be more consistent ?--JustinSmith (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the commentary. It does not have anything to do with Dunkirk, it is Veules-les-Roses in Upper-Normandy, 250km from Dunkirk. Same date, same place and same conditions here, easy to recognize . Nortmannus (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"in terms of medium tanks, these numbers are the equivalent of three to four Panzer Divisions." Probably in 1944 but 245 tanks would be one panzer division in 1940. You are saying that a 1940 panzer division had only 60- 80 medium tanks (Pz III & IV) in the latter half of 1940. The number of panzer battalions/regiments in a panzer division did vary but this figure has to be incorrect. I am assuming that the Czech tanks count as light tanks but they were armed with 37mm guns and would defeat a Mk VI light tank so they should be really counted as mediums. It gives a false impression, it would be better to include the Mk VI light tanks in the British figures and just compare armoured divisions with armoured divisions.
A German panzer battalion in 1940 at full establishment was supposed to have 25 PzKpfw II, 53 PzKpfw III and 14 PzKpfw IV - a total of 92 tanks (or 368 per division). These were organised into an HQ of 2 PzKpfw III and 5 PzKpfw II, 3 medium companies of 17 PzKpfw III and 5 PzKpfw II each, and a support company of 14 PzKpfw IV and 5 PzKpfw II. That’s 67 mediums per battalion, so a four panzer bn division had 268 medium tanks. Sitalkes (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Three battalions of amphibious tanks were allocated to the 16th Army and one battalion to the 9th Army. As of 29 August 1940, the four battalions, lettered A-D, totalled 160 PzKpfw III (U) submersible tanks with 37mm guns, 8 PzKpfw III (U) submersible tanks with 50mm guns, 42 PzKpfw IV (U) submersible tanks with 75mm guns, and 52 PzKpfw II (Schwimm) amphibious tanks with 20mm guns. The battalions were organized into three companies of four platoons each.
There are also 64 Stug III’s, 54 Pz Jager 1’s and 20 Flammpanzer II’s with the first wave. With the second wave come 12 Sturmpanzer 1’s, 16 Flammpanzer II’s, and a regiment of Nebelwerfers. There were five regiments of Luftwaffe flak units with the first wave. Many of the flak guns were mounted on (mostly unarmoured but half tracked) vehicles and highly mobile.
4th & 10th Panzer Divisions had two panzer regiments (4 panzer bns, 300 tanks including 16 Pz1B). ) and 4 Schützen / Motorcycle bns 7th Panzer had one panzer regiment (3 panzer bns, 210 tanks, including Pzkpfw 38(t)) and 5 Schützen/Motorcycle bns. 8th Panzer had one panzer regiment (3 panzer bns, 210 tanks including 42 Pzkpfw 38(t)) and 4 Schützen / Motorcycle bns
If you include the Stug III's that makes a total of 954 medium tanks, and a total of about 1450 tanks plus 400 light armoured vehicles in the invasion force.Sitalkes (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitalkes (talk Sitalkes (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)• contribs) 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting article, but I think there's a pertinent part of the preparations that is omitted entirely. I was vaguely aware of it before, but noticed it more clearly in the List of tallest destroyed buildings and structures in the United Kingdom: the demolition of landmarks that could guide enemy pilots to their targets. I am aware only of the three examples of the list, so far unable to discover more in a brief search, but others may exist and more may have been considered for demolition (if this article is to be believed). The three structures were all destroyed in 1939: the twin water towers of the Crystal Palace in London and the Tait Tower in Glasgow, which had been opened just the previous year and was visible over a huge area. They are probably isolated cases, but I believe they are conspicuous enough that a mention in the article may be warranted. Waltham, The Duke of 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I've found another reference, regarding Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, in Great Stink#Legacy: "The building's large double chimneys were removed during the Second World War following fears that they could be used by the Luftwaffe as landmarks for navigation". There is also a relevant sentence in the building's article, though it is unsourced and gives a different reason for the demolition: "Two Moorish styled chimneys – unused since steam power had been replaced by electric motors in 1933 – were demolished in 1941, as it was feared that a bomb strike from German bombs might topple them on to the pumping station." Waltham, The Duke of 22:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)85.168.79.3 (talk)he section on chemical warfare mentions Paris Green... To my best Knowledge Paris Green is a greenish powder who was used as a Rodenticide and as a pigment for 19th century painters. Are you sure it's not a mistake? Arsenic compounds like adamsite or lewisite have been developped for chemical warfare, bu I have never heard of killing people with obsolete pigments....
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence (in "Would the preparations have been effective") :
While Britain may have been militarily secure in 1940, both sides were aware of the possibility of a political collapse. If the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been able to strike anywhere in southern England
It`s implying that areas of this country would have been undefended from the Luftwaffe. As far as I`m aware nobody has ever suggested that RAF Fighter Command would have ceased to exist, it would simply have moved to operate from bases NW of London. As such its fighters could still have covered most of the south of England. I accept they would have taken longer to "reach the scene", but on the other hand the aircraft would have been higher (in altitude) when they finally made their interceptions and therefore in a better position to win any engagements.--JustinSmith (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well there's no indication that the RAF would have moved north. Quite the opposite, it was cycling units from the north to the south all the time and never moved out even when under the greatest strain and airfields were out of action. Anyway, as it was cycling units through combat, there would not have been some vast, unused reserve of pilots and aircraft waiting in the north.Sitalkes (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"no indication that the RAF would have moved north" : I thought it was on record that the RAF were prepared to move north of London if the airfields south it became unusable ? I`m sure that`s in at least one of the books on the subject I have, though it`s the obvious thing to do anyway. What else would the RAF do ? Cycling units round the country was for a different reason, namely to give squadrons a period of rest and time to rebuild as they suffered casualties during the battle.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.