JonathanFI think in the Internet vernacular, the expression is “PWNED!!!!11111”.
JonathanFIt’s a shame, in that we probably won’t get a film that would otherwise have been a dead cert for release and a decent budget. On the upside, loony-Cruise cops it – fantastic.
Off-topic, but anyone wanting to read more on his and Travolto’s nutso cult should have a look at this site:
JonathanFJust playing the fence-sitting devil’s advocate really. If you see the canonisation of the Spit over the Hurri in the same light as that of the RAF over the other services, then the analogy holds to a point, but as both types actually fought to defend the country, and the navy didn’t, that’s where it falls down!
And I may have been trying to say the same thing re slating something we haven’t actually read, but I don’t think I was doing a very good job, so I’m glad you did 🙂
Perhaps we could more justifiably argue a greater place in the popular consciousness for RADAR than we could the RN?
JonathanFGood point Ian. however it’s also fair to say that the Luftwaffe failed to achive daytime air supiriority, which was an essential prelude to invation.
I note no-one seems to have read the actual article, just the Choleric Colonel’s newspaper version. Rather like learning history by reading the Da Vinci Code (Vomit emoticon).
Anyone able to do so? Can’t have too many big words, it’s from officer trainers, after all. (I wish I could, but it’ll get to Aus in about 2009.)
I was trying to make the same point; we’re all blethering over the media-spun soundbite version. Whilst Dr Gordon probably won’t mind the extra publicity that comes from appearing to be contraversial, that needn’t be his intent, or the actual contents of the article. I get History Today at work, so will be reading the whole thing for myself hopefully this week.
It might be worth noting that many aviation enthusiasts are all for revisionism when it comes to the Hurricane “winning” the BoB, virtually personifying the type as a brave plucky underdog over the glamourous Spitfire. But that they reject this idea out of hand, maybe because it takes them outside their aviation comfort zone, I don’t know.
But yes, let’s see what they’re actually trying to say behind the hype, and try to have informed opinions on the subject.
JonathanFAccording to the Duxford web site, it will only be open for that week and the airshow.
Brian
Do you mean this?
http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conEvent.1247
AirSpace Exhibition opening
Date: 29 Aug 2006 to 1 Sep 2006
Location: AirSpaceImperial War Museum Duxford is delighted to announce that from this week there will be some limited informal access to the new AirSpace exhibition. If you are interested in seeing the exhibition please check in advance of travel that the building will be open by telephoning the Museum on (01223) 835000.
JonathanFAlong similar lines is this:
JonathanFWhich begs the question; why throw so many resources at the RAF?
The answer Jonathan is simple.
It is so that we can protect your freedom to voice your opinions from your armchair.
The Army and RAF are facing ugly situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and are seriously overstretched as regards personnel and equipment.
The Navy don’t have as much on their plate at the moment.We need balanced resources and more of them to meet the commitments that our beloved government have bestowed on the armed forces.
Then maybe I won’t lose too many more friends.
You misunderstand me. Having stated that I largely agreed with the ideas behind the report, I was by asking that question offering the alternate view as in “if the RAF was not seen as the threat, and/or if the Germans never intended to invade, why throw resources at it”? In other words, “there was a genuine threat of invasion, and clearly the Germans did not think they could do this without destroying the RAF”. I don’t necessarily subscribe to either theory, I was simply commenting on them.
You are correct in that we are free to debate these things precisely because of the sacrifice of servicemen; I am grateful for that right, but the idea that if you ain’t BTDT, you aren’t qualified to comment is flawed in my opinion. I can’t comment on what its really like to face death, but I can comment on the implications of that service on a bigger scale. The two things are not the same, and pronouncements on events at a strategic level should not reflect upon the individual actions of brave soldiers, sailors and airmen. I wouldn’t be here and in the line of work I’m in if I did not have the utmost respect for them all, past and present. It’s precisely because the average person no longer has an affinity with the military that I do my best each day to try and bridge the gap by working with the objects left behind by fighting men and women and those that supported them. I have presented the facts to those who criticise Bomber Command for its attacking of civilian targets, and to people who slate commanders in the First World War, because they have clearly not grasped the big picture, the reasons for those events, and the context in which they can be seen as justified. Just as they are too distant from the events to understand them, so are those that took part and are otherwise part of the military, often too close to them to do likewise.
I had hoped it was clear from my post that I respect the contribution of the RAF and that I personally thought both services were essential to the home defence effort. If it wasn’t, then it is now; without either we would have been open to invasion.
If anyone is trying to imply disrespect for the RAF, I would suggest that it is the media who report what the historians are saying in an oversimplified way. I understand why those who serve(d) are suspicious of those who have not (especially historians with books to sell), but you should realise that historians can bring objectivity to the study of the past; precisely because they were not there, allows them to look at the bigger picture. But also that they cannot change what happened. And what happened, the defeat of the Luftwaffe and a major contribution to the defeat of Nazi oppression, is not in doubt. Reinterpretation and the study of history is essential, and the vast majority of historians have great respect for the military; don’t let aspects of their work offend you. The idea is to remove bias from all sides and look at the facts from outside, and then to reconcile this with the interpretations of the day. Historians may lack first-hand experience, but that’s what makes their contribution important – they have experience of objective analysis and research that those taking part could not bring to bear. For example, the true significance of the Iraq war will only be seen in the decades to come. Having said that, where there is a clear political or revisionist (for the sake of revisionism) agenda, this needs to be countered.
Work like this should never be taken as a slight to the personal sacrifices made for our freedom, even if that is somehow its underlying intention (historians do have agendas of course). It cannot change the raw facts of why we went to war and the victories that were achieved, the defeats that were sustained.
JonathanFIt’s a question of scale – of course Fighter Command won the air battle and defeated the Luftwaffe, which would have been a major detractor for any invasion plan. It’s misleading to say that they didn’t win the Battle of Britain, since as we all know and define it, the air battle *was* the Battle of Britain. But in the bigger picture of home defence, I think historians are right to point out that was the deterrent factor of the Fleet that was the major impediment to a serious invasion attempt. The battle not fought, as it were. The air battle was prime for propaganda purposes as it was happening right above the public’s heads and carried the romance factor of the previous war’s “gentlemen flyers”. The Spit being the poster child of course. The importance of the hearts and minds war at home, especially considering our initial relectance to confront the Nazis, shouldn’t be underestimated.
The press are always keen to play these things up as a scrap between services, but the historians are looking at this objectively and in a strategic sense; they aren’t (I would hope) trying to detract from the achievement of the RAF, and nor should they. It’s just realistic to acknowledge the presence of a fleet that size when you consider German invasion plans and the size of their own surface fleet.
Which begs the question; why throw so many resources at the RAF?
JonathanFThank you! I’ve been wondering what that was from. I suppose it’s meant to represent engineering innovation.
JonathanFIt’s just Al Qaeda recruiting from “the other side”. Gets past security no problem, but not much of a threat to anything aside from the shade of passenger’s trousers.
JonathanFIncreasingly, lazy journos (think 3rd line rags) are basing whole articles on quotes pulled from special interest forums; not just professional ones like PPRUNE either, as though the residents are qualified experts! When they aren’t doing that they’re trawling non-commercial sites for ideas for stories, or even (allegedly) stories they can simply rip off and put their own name to.
JonathanF:diablo:
Oh The un inspired umong us (see a roadrunner thread) might somthing arrive in the morning to add to this day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! wait and see!
What Mark Spit did you want Sir!!!!!!!!old doG’s get more bones K.O.
I live in hope that these folks will one day add an “Octainspeke” option to their drop-down menu.
JonathanFWith all the information being displayed so close to the pilot’s eye do the concerned airforces still need pilots with a perfect eyesight?
You still need a healthy set of Mk.I eyeballs to spot threats by “looking out of the canopy”. If you’re implying eyestrain worries, I think so-called “computer vision syndrome” is a minor worry for pilots using all this high-tech kit for prolonged periods, but this passes with rest if it’s anything like the version us sad earthbound VDU users get.
JonathanFI think a site like that needs more than 3 days, some highly speculative conclusions, some bad knitwear/sandals and a mountain of post-excavation work still to do/fund. Be a start though I suppose.
JonathanFI understand that some WW2 veterans are upset that the new “veteran’s” medal(lion) bears the Queen’s crown and not the King’s.
Sign In
