• This topic has 54 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by grum.
Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • A sad day!
  • binners
    Full Member

    Get a room, you two! FFS!

    grum
    Free Member

    Maybe we could get a room together on the Ark Royal like you and the mystery sailor binners? 😛

    binners
    Full Member

    Exactly! 😉

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    grum
    Free Member

    We’d need to get there pretty quick though.

    CountZero
    Full Member

    It does seem that people are generally interested in the machinery of war because it is bigger or quicker or in some other way perceived to be more awesome than the civilian equivalents. I think for most it’s not a celebration of conflict.

    Very true. The thing is, most military hardware has similar characteristics to predatory animals, being sleek and fast, and designed to kill things. It’s no different really to being interested in raptors big cats and sharks, as I am, rather than cows, pigeons and guppies.

    edlong
    Free Member

    There’s a purity to the engineering decisions that are made putting together a war machine that I can appreciate from a technical point of view without condoning the politics behind its procurement and / or deployment.

    Things are designed how they are, driven entirely by their purpose, with no consideration towards making it look pretty, re-styling it in three years time to keep it looking ‘fresh’ against the competition or providing unnecessary gizmos and novelty. I see more beauty in the purity of form of a brutish military machine than some “sculpted” sports coupe that is, underneath, the same as the practical hatchback version but put in a prettier dress.

    stumpy01
    Full Member

    edlong – Member
    There’s a purity to the engineering decisions that are made putting together a war machine that I can appreciate from a technical point of view without condoning the politics behind its procurement and / or deployment.

    Things are designed how they are, driven entirely by their purpose, with no consideration towards making it look pretty, re-styling it in three years time to keep it looking ‘fresh’ against the competition or providing unnecessary gizmos and novelty. I see more beauty in the purity of form of a brutish military machine than some “sculpted” sports coupe that is, underneath, the same as the practical hatchback version but put in a prettier dress.

    Very well put.

    A-10 Thunderbolt would be top of my list.

    Not always necessary to lose the form to the function completely, although sometimes the good function comes as a result of good form – elliptical wings of the Spitfire for example and also the Concorde….does seem to be mainly aircraft that follow that, though.

    flange
    Free Member

    I like to categorise this as ‘big sh1t’ and therefore it’s cool. Along with large dumper trucks, cranes, turbines and stuff.

    Seems a waste to destroy something that required so many resources to build…

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Things are designed how they are, driven entirely by their purpose, with no consideration towards making it look pretty, re-styling it in three years time to keep it looking ‘fresh’ against the competition or providing unnecessary gizmos and novelty.

    That being the case would you feel similarly moved to post on an internet forum when an oil refinary is shut down? Granted for those who served on this ship I can see that there would be an emotional attachment but I’m certainly in the camp that doesn’t understand this whole gloying in military design thing as futher evidenced by the recent “glorying” in the dambusters raid. It all just seems rather distateful. There are plenty of other great engineering feats to marvel at that aren’t designed to kill.

    edlong
    Free Member

    That being the case would you feel similarly moved to post on an internet forum when an oil refinery is shut down?

    Yeah, weirdly, I would. I quite like that whole “urban exploration” thing, old industrial stuff fascinates me, whether it’s a factory that was closed last week awaiting the wrecking ball, or the few well hidden remains of a three hundred year old mill race that you stumble across in the woods when out for a ride. Old airfields rock, too.

    Do people think it’s weird that lots of tourists flock to, and pay good money for, old castles? Roman forts? Is Hadrian’s Wall not magnificent and inspiring because it’s military? Or magnificent and inspiring because it is military? Or regardless, it’s just magnificent and inspiring? Do we need to worry about imperialism or can we just be impressed with it? I’d like to think so.

    seadog101
    Full Member

    Mintman – Member
    I spent 2 years in Ark Royal as one of the engineers and had some of my greatest memories in that ship.

    Sad day for me too Mintman. I gained my Bridge Watchkeeping ticket on her, despite working for an absolute tyrant of a Navigator.

    Amazing bits of kit. No ship I have worked on since can make quite the same noise as those 4 Olympus at full speed. Indeed, still the fastest ship I’ve ever had the con of. Grey Funnel or Merchant.

    freeagent
    Free Member

    There’s a purity to the engineering decisions that are made putting together a war machine that I can appreciate from a technical point of view without condoning the politics behind its procurement and / or deployment.

    Things are designed how they are, driven entirely by their purpose, with no consideration towards making it look pretty, re-styling it in three years time to keep it looking ‘fresh’ against the competition or providing unnecessary gizmos and novelty. I see more beauty in the purity of form of a brutish military machine than some “sculpted” sports coupe that is, underneath, the same as the practical hatchback version but put in a prettier dress.

    ^^^ +1.

    I’ve been driving passed the Ark regularly over the last few months whilst working in Portsmouth Navy base and it has been looking increasingly sad as it was being stripped of anything worth keeping.

    Regardless of its purpose, it was/is a fantastic bit of Engineering which dates back to the days when everything was drawn up by hand, and Engineering calcs were done by a man with a calculator, rather than a clever bit of software.

    I also took my daughter to see Illustrious last week while she was alongside in Greenwich, she is due to be decommissioned next year which will be the end of this class of ships.

    Anyone who is interested in the latest generation of Naval Hardware should try and get a visit to one of the new T45s – amazing piece of Engineering.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Regardless of its purpose, it was/is a fantastic bit of Engineering which dates back to the days when everything was drawn up by hand, and Engineering calcs were done by a man with a calculator, rather than a clever bit of software.

    Software isn’t clever, software is dumb. The clever bit is knowing what to ask the software to do and how to interpret the results.

    Sadly this is a point that is lost on many people, including some engineers that I’m forced to work with!

    BadlyWiredDog
    Full Member

    And its passengers and crew could drink champagne in comfort, not have to wear flying suits and oxygen masks.

    That’s brilliant, I rarely drink bubbly for precisely that reason – all the dressing up just takes so long and those masks properly inhibit conversation. Where do I get one?

    grum
    Free Member

    It does seem that people are generally interested in the machinery of war because it is bigger or quicker or in some other way perceived to be more awesome than the civilian equivalents. I think for most it’s not a celebration of conflict.

    Very true. The thing is, most military hardware has similar characteristics to predatory animals, being sleek and fast, and designed to kill things. It’s no different really to being interested in raptors big cats and sharks, as I am, rather than cows, pigeons and guppies.

    I kind of see where you’re coming from there. I think a bit of context/sensitivity might not go amiss from some people though.

    Someone mentioned Dambusters above – I listened to a very gung ho glorifying retrospective of it on the radio the other day – I didn’t hear the whole thing but in the bit I listened to there was no mention of the civilian casualties (inc approx 1000 mostly Soviet forced labourers and prisoners).

Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)

The topic ‘A sad day!’ is closed to new replies.