A Forum addition?

Not bickering Kev just interested in the people who died in all occupations in two world wars,not building more counterfeit Spitfires.

Either way, bickering amongst ourselves is hardly conducive to inspiring Key to go ahead with anything.

As the idea for a Britain at War forum has currently (and hopefully) been postponed for the moment, is there any possibility of a compromise to the situation? Perhaps a dedicated sub forum for research questions which has less chance of getting lost in the day to day topics of historic aviation? A lot of the research people do is, in fact, broad based – we go off on tangents – something this forum has been famous for in the past. investigating an aerial incident or event has led to other things. For me personally, the Luftwaffe bombing of Walsall led to me looking at all aspects of Civil Defence in the area. I know another respected members research into two losses over the sea has taken him into researching the RN’s actions on that day and, again for myself, I have been brought into looking into the role of the Home Guard. It is this holistic approach to looking at conflict which Britain at War excels at – the minutiae of little incidents which, while having no great bearing on the outcome of a conflict, provide snapshots of lives lived and sometimes lost. Telling a schoolchild that there was a factory behind the school which was bombed during the war means literally nothing to them. You give them the context of the incident by showing photographs, sharing oral histories etc., can bring it all to life. That is what I try to do with the stories I research – to put flesh on the bones – to turn the dry, often dusty words of a newspaper article to life. But I guess I’m labouring the point again, and mourning a lost opportunity.

See what I mean about going off on a tangent? You never know just where it might lead.

Regards,

kev35

Perhaps he could confine himself to war at sea, land and the home front.

But there are people of a non-aviation bent who want to read about Britain’s conflict history in its entirety. Deliberately omitting aviation from B@W would make it a less comprehensive source, and also may be a lost opportunity to interest someone whose main interest is boats in the idea of wandering along to (say) Duxford to see a Seafire in flight.

Moggy

The format of ‘Britain at War’ has always been land/sea/home front and air. That is not likely to change and the aviation side of our content has always been a strong, important and popular part of the magazine.

FlyPast and Aeroplane are two of our sister publications and, indeed, Britain at War Magazine (as part of Key Publishing) also falls within the aviation ‘group’ of magazines at the company. As a consequence, there will not be duplications of content or stories across these Key titles and the treatment of aviation material in Britain at War will largely have an entirely different ‘slant’ and feel to it.

The promotion of Britain of War magazine via the pages of this Forum, owned by Key Publishing, is thus entirely appropriate and especially so in this instance where the subject matter is specifically relating to a Key Publishing Britain at War Forum.

As regards to the latter, Key Publishing are grateful for the interest in this subject and for the suggestion raised by kev35. I can only reiterate that a decision has been made not to proceed with a Key Britain at War Forum at the current time. This does not rule out its creation at some point in the future.

Perhaps he could confine himself t to war at sea,land and the home front. We have a perfectly good pair of aircraft magazines(Flypast and Aeroplane) that cover the subject in detail? (even without Mr Boyles copy):D

BTW Fords I have had a few’
2000 v4 Corsair Nightmare headgaskets
Mk 3 Cortina rust
Mk 3 Escorts not bad
RS Turbo axle tranp when booting it then stolen
Mk3 Capri did not like starting(VV carb apparantly.)

Still Japanese all the way now!

I think as the thread is about a Britain At War forum we Mods can hardly sanction him for mentioning it.

But just you wait until he pops up on the ‘Great Fords’ thread… I’ll nail him there!

Moggy

Of course despite the excellent idea it was never going to go forward while Andy(Tangmere) is pushing his mag,five times on this thread alone!

It’s quite annoying that it is something the members have expressed positive attitudes towards, the moderators are solidly behind and (I assume) the Editor would be grateful for, yet it has stalled, however temporarily.

Bummer.

Moggy

Sorry for being a bit late back to the party on this.

Thanks for keeping us up to date Andy. I suppose from Key’s position it’s just one more thing to have to organise and to manage but I can’t help thinking they might be missing an opportunity here. Flypast has become an excellent resource for those of us conducting research and by it’s very nature has a more informal, less academic feel than some of the more dedicated fora such as The Aerodrome, WW2 Talk and the Long, Long Trail, and perhaps because of this it has more of a community feel than many other forums.

It is a shame that the idea cannot go forward now and I think using General Discussion for research questions really isn’t the right platform. Thanks anyway to the powers that be at Key for giving the idea consideration.

Regards,

kev35

This has now been considered carefully and it is felt that, for the time being, Key Publishing will not be pursuing this option.

Thank you to Kev for making the suggestion and for the general interest in the idea.

Although it isn’t quite the same, perhaps, we do have Facebook and Twitter accounts at Britain at War Magazine – so do please follow those if you don’t already!

Perhaps a New Britain @ War Forum for those of us in the Pacific ?
Wecome back Kev.

#23 refers, Rob68

Why not add another sub section to this rather than have a totally new forum, its all “Key” now anyway? It may draw in people on the sides of aviation etc to cross pollinate and draw in extra casual impulse purchases of mags

Even better!

You could tag it onto this forum, by removing “general discussion” a greater of waste space I have yet to encounter.

A section just on Spitfires would be better for you anoraks that love to discuss rivet sizes and paint colours, maybe train numbers as well

Good call Kev35 and welcome back 🙂

The problem, I suspect, with ‘tagging onto this forum’ is that this is an aviation forum.

Britain at War does have aviation content, but covers land, sea and air. Equally, it is fair to say that Historic Military Vehicles has no aviation content if it were also ‘tagged on’.

When I get any feedback from Key Publishing I will let the forum know.

You could tag it onto this forum, by removing “general discussion” a greater of waste space I have yet to encounter.

It keeps people entertained and no -one is forced to read it.

You could tag it onto this forum, by removing “general discussion” a greater of waste space I have yet to encounter.

Bruce, thanks very much for the kind words, it is very much appreciated.

Regards,

kev35