Actually, the shortage was trained Pilots, not aircraft

that too. it was in my double delayed post

I feel that in our current adventures abroad we are fighting Americas war. We are losing equipment (and sadly people)out there, I don't think it would be wrong to send them a bill.

I feel that in our current adventures abroad we are fighting Americas war. We are losing equipment (and sadly people)out there, I don't think it would be wrong to send them a bill.

Probably agreed to get paid in oil, except that we all* know that the US will happily shaft us once the dirty work has been done.

*anyone who isn't a politician.

All Hell Let Loose by Max Hastings gives a very interesting insight into the multitude of deals, politics, economic considerations, rivalry and plain stupidity which existed prior to and during WW2

Very few nations came out of that period smelling of roses but many individuals acted with bravery and resourcefulness that is alien to most of us.

I feel that in our current adventures abroad we are fighting Americas war. We are losing equipment (and sadly people)out there, I don't think it would be wrong to send them a bill.

The US has a long history of shafting us.

And they will continue to do so until our politicians grow some balls 😉

Back to the OP.
Perhaps the BoB is on show because our military exploits during the Queen's actual 50 years as a monarch which we are celebrating don't read quite the same Suez,Korea,Kenya,Malaysia,Oman ,Jordan,N.Ireland ,Falklands...oh, and there's Afghanistan and Iraq too..

Ernie, that video you posted

just made me well up a little.

What a great video, to those moaning about appropriateness, well, I can't help you.

If you're not touched by something that is nearly 70 years old and yet still sounds the nuts, and did so much for Britain, well, I'd suggest you're a little dead inside.

Just sayin.

[i]Had Goering not switched from bombing the Fighter Command airfields to bombing London during Sept 1940, who knows what may have happened.[/i]

the germans still would have lost, because in 1940

they had no bombs which could penetrate the deck armour of the british battle fleet (and dive bombing requires clear skies to 8000 feet).

no aircraft capable of delivering a torpedo attack.

only 1 heavy cruiser (adniral hipper) ready to support an invasion "fleet" (I think, phrase would have been "Call that a fleet, this is a fleet" as the British Home fleet hoved into view.

no proper landing craft

uboats were still operating from Baltic Ports.

even if 11 group was obliterated prior to invasion, the luftwaffe would had still deal with 10,12 & 13 Group once the invasion commenced.

etc etc

There was a window of opportunity after the fall of france where the German may well have succeeded with an airborne led invasion. But again they probably never really had the capability to achieve this either. The German Army, impressive as it was, was never prepared for a seaborne invasion of the UK and combined with it's extremely weak Navy, a complete non starter. Obviously this doesn't read as well as the more populist account and no doubt the Bravery of the men and women of the RAF did a lot to convince the Germans we would be no push over. The switching to bombing of london wasn't a mistake it was more acceptance by the Germans that it was a fight they could never win.

If you're not touched by something that is nearly 70 years old and yet still sounds the nuts, and did so much for Britain, well, I'd suggest you're a little dead inside.

So something that happened 70 years ago, ie before the coronation that happened 60 years ago. The BoB flight is not the issue, but why include something to celebrate an event that is not relelvant to the event, in my eyes reinforcing the backward looking nature of this country? If you want to include the BoB in an airshow fine, for remberance day fine, these are things to which it is appropriate. But for a coronation?

the germans still would have lost, because in 1940

they had no bombs which could penetrate the deck armour of the british battle fleet (and dive bombing requires clear skies to 8000 feet).

no aircraft capable of delivering a torpedo attack.

only 1 heavy cruiser (adniral hipper) ready to support an invasion "fleet" (I think, phrase would have been "Call that a fleet, this is a fleet" as the British Home fleet hoved into view.

no proper landing craft

uboats were still operating from Baltic Ports.

even if 11 group was obliterated prior to invasion, the luftwaffe would had still deal with 10,12 & 13 Group once the invasion commenced.

You forgot to mention the Home Guard.............[b][i]"Further resistance is useless. In the name of the King I demand that you surrender"[/i][/b] - Captain Mainwaring to the U-boat captain. It's that sort of mettle and British spirit which guaranteed that jerry never stood a chance from the very start. I really don't know what they were thinking of.

they don't like it up 'em they don't like it up 'em 🙂

The German people and their politics have learned and benefited more than the British/US from the outcome of WW2. They have Constitutional protection and keen awareness of how they (and the rest of Europe) suffered as a result of the process that allowed the Third Reich to seed and flourish, and are determined that it can not occur again. The same can probably not be said of British and US people and politics.

The same can probably not be said of British and US people and politics.

The British might once again fall for the folly of allowing a wartime national coalition government ?

Indeed.

Look at it this way, alot of children will be present at the events etc etc. Would it be fair to say that they can see 'duty' as meaning do what a Politician wants and/or for private (profit) interest but dressed up as essential and 'take pride'?

I'm sick of seeing young men and women being killed and badly maimed- loosing their wedding tackle for ****s sake and rather than being seen as victims of a hopeless situation they are called 'heroes'.

We are leaving Afghanistan. That is for sure, its just going to get a whole lot worse and back to similar pre-'intervention'.

I remember years ago there were reasons given as Taliban treating women badly. Have a look under our own noses with the wearing of the bhurka and living behind closed-doors for some women here in the UK.

BAE, Babcock etc etc are all doing well due to the perpetual war(s) overseas. It creates jobs (politicians satisfied along with donors..). So does constant active service war and deployment along with the contractors.

So to get to the point, I'd like to see war stop being glorified. Non-military fly pasts.

I'd like to see war stop being glorified. Non-military fly pasts.

Whilst there might be a case to be made that Britain should be ashamed of the supporting role it gives the world's number one bully boy, Britain has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of concerning its behaviour during World War II. It was an immensely proud period in Britain's history, indeed some might say its Finest Hour.

I think it is very fitting that it should be remembered and recalled during historical events, particularly with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Lancasters. And not least because some of those whom we owe a debt to are still with us today. Although I hope they will be remembered for many years to come.

Britain has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of concerning its behaviour during World War II

So we'll ignore the oppression of a foreign nation (India)and the firebombing/carpet bombing of civilian targets then.

Yep, the bombing of Dresden was unacceptable. But Britain's involvement in World War II is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. It was indeed an immensely proud period in Britain's history and I stick by all my comments.

There will be individual events in wars which will clearly be judged as unacceptable, and I will bear in mind your comment if I ever stand up and make a speech to the House hora, but that does not invalidate the righteousness of fighting a war.

It wasn't just Dresden though. Far from it.

My dad was a radio operator in a Wellington bomber for most of the war, [he became an instructor in late 44]
I don't think he would of cared less what people now think of what he and 100s of thousands of others did to try to protect us from the immediate threat and the potential future threats, he 100% believed he was right and so do I.
He flew lots of raids into Europe and had no real interest in the target per se, the only thing that they endlessly talked about was what the flak was like enroute and over the target [that and the cold] That's also all he ever mentioned about raids, if someone mentioned something like Frankfurt in conversation, he'd often chirp up with "terrible flak"
My parents went on a bus tour around Europe some years ago and he gave the whole coach the benefit of his knowledge of whether or not the flak was OK for the next town they were approaching 😀

hora - Member

It wasn't just Dresden though. Far from it.

Yeah ok, Britain should be ashamed of its role during World War II. All flypasts by Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Lancasters, should be banned. And all memories of that dreadful period in British history should be erased from the collective mind. Good luck with convincing the rest of the British people in agreeing with your ultra pacifist views.

But Britain's involvement in World War II is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. It was indeed an immensely proud period in Britain's history and I stick by all my comments.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/82/a1934282.shtml ]debateable[/url]

Sorry to piss on your bonfire Ernie, Britain didn't win the war. Russia did.

debateable

All famines in recent history are "artificial"........they are the result of a shortage of money, not a shortage of food.

But anyway, I have already conceded that Britain should be ashamed of fighting the Nazis, so I'm happy to also concede that Britain should be ashamed of fighting the Japanese. Although I'm not sure what the two million Indians who volunteered to help Britain during World War II (the largest volunteer army in human history) would have made of it.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire Ernie

You're not in the least bit sorry. I can tell.

To me it's not really looking back at *war* as a good thing. It's appreciating our technical skills, enjoying seeing some of our best engineering and appreciating the loss that folk took for our freedom. That doesn't mean I don't agree we could have our most modern hardware etc on display to show how forward thinking we are (though I don't think we really have much?).

History repeats itself and each time the cost is higher. Does presenting them make people think "yeay, war, ace" or "think of the loss that those amazing bits of engineering go along with". To me it's the latter.

I can see why you might suggest those in some ways, but Concorde, first flight 1969, the harrier taken out of service and again first flight 1967, hardly the pinnacle of british technology?

I was of the general impression that making concorde happen took a lot more technological advances than getting man on the moon. And Concorde flew a lot longer that the Saturn V.

And contrary to your false claim, the Battle of Britain was won by Britain.

And lost by germany...

Do enlighten me Zokes on how the BoB was "lost" by Germany. Germany switched to bombing rather than fighter engagements because of losses.(I assume you are referring to Goering's decision to switch to a bombing campaign, rather than trying to thin out our air defences enough to make an invasion viable.)

I think we've had this argument already on this thread.

I was under the impression the Luftwaffe switched to bombing cities in retaliation for a raid on Berlin by the RAF, which in turn was in retaliation for bombs dropped on London. by accident. by a german bomber that was lost & decided to ditch his bombs & go home...

And lost by germany...

Yep, let's not forget that Germany lost World War II. That's one of the reasons why I always like to mention the war - we've got a young German guy who sometimes comes on bike rides with my CC. I think he found the occasion when we stopped at the War Memorial on Warlingham Green (to two world wars) particularly instructive. They forget sometimes you know.

Sorry, based on the subject matter, four pages, and my experience of STW; I skipped to the end. I am quite interested in it,this is my understanding of it;
The Germans were losing pilots as such a rate they were having to put bomber pilots into fighters,(having to fight over British airspace meant they had less fuel, could be quickly outnumbered by our very,very clever fighter command, couldn't clear out of a dog fight)In fact German pilots during the BoB talk about quickly being outnumbered 3 to 1; this was accelerating the rate of losses, so a change of tactics was necessary.
Germany had,by this point, introduced Spain to the bomber,the results of which was a major reason for the policy of appeasement, so they felt it would be a better use of resources, and would allow them to force Britain either to surrender,or make a land invasion easier. The counter claims about killing civilians was rubbish on both sides.The Germans were very aware of fighting on too many fronts,as WW1 had taught them, and didn't really want to invade Britain. Italy played a big part in helping us to win the war by getting into trouble in North Africa and then asking Germany for help. As did Hitler's not-unfounded fear of Russia.

So if Germany lost the BoB because we killed so many of their pilots, then Zokes is correct.

I'd have thought that towing one of the surviving TSR2 airframes down the Mall would have been appropriate, both in historic and current contexts.

Regarding having modern aircraft in the display, apart from the Typhoon, what others have we got? C17 Cargomasters?
Only leased, and hardly our cutting edge tech.

Sorry to be a pedant, but I think that beating ourselves over the head with our terminal decline is a British disease, and it's made worse by inaccuracies!
The C17 Globemaster is the backbone of Uncle Sam's heavy lift fleet, with no plans to replace it any time soon. If it's good enough for them....
The RAF [u]owns[/u] 8 of them. They were originally leased but bought, and extras ordered, after their usefulness became clear and we put way too many hours on them for the lease!

Tornado? Well, I think we've got one or two left.

About a hundred I think, in various degrees of serviceability/deployedness etc.

Regarding the Typhoon, how many do we actually have available, that aren't in the Falklands/in maintenance/ whatever? I've been told the Typhoon is something of a hanger queen, but that could be hearsay.

It is. If you talk to people who actually know, rather than read Max Hastings or some other journo with an axw to grind, it's a great aeroplane and developing all the time, thanks to the hard work of a lot of people.
Apologies again for the pedantry, but I don't like to see the modern RAF slated!

Regarding our less commendable actions during the war, such as the Bengal famine, and comparing them to the Holocaust, is it not possible to distinguish between deliberate genocide of a people and that caused by neglect, mismanagement or simply having other priorities? Remember this was total war, difficult for modern minds to picture, with people in power having to make terrible decisions between the lesser of two evils. Not a position I'd want to be in.

I agree with Ernie and Churchill, the BoB was the Empire's finest hour.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[IMG] [/IMG]

woow thinks i'll be waiting for a ban has my reply has been deleted but i don't have my old hot mail account
so one lies down n waits 😥

What did you say? If it was directed at me, feel free to PM.

Do enlighten me Zokes on how the BoB was "lost" by Germany.

As it clearly wasn't a draw (not even in the Monty Python's Black Night sense of the word), presumably as one side (Britain) won the BoB, the other side (Germany) must have lost? Unless you live in a parallel universe in which both opposing sides won?

zokes - Member

As it clearly wasn't a draw (not even in the Monty Python's Black Night sense of the word), presumably as one side (Britain) won the BoB, the other side (Germany) must have lost? Unless you live in a parallel universe in which both opposing sides won?

Indeed zokes, so perhaps you can explain why you felt the need to emphasise that Germany had lost, after I had pointed out that Britain had won the Battle of Britain.

As you say, unless you live in a parallel universe in which both opposing sides won why would anyone want to say that ? What was the point which you were trying to make ?

and back to the original question, is it appropriate to celebrate beating one of your major trading partners 70 years later, when the coronation happened 60 years ago and thus isn't directly relevant to the battle of britain. BoB at remembrance day, air shows, VE day etc fine. but for the celebration of the coronation or other even more tenuous events?

and back to the original question, is it appropriate to celebrate beating one of your major trading partners 70 years later

yes - the queen grew up during the war, she was clearly pleased to see the fly past, plus germany 'dragged' us into two wars last century, and war is a terrible thing and people should be reminded of this and the huge cost regularly...

[i]the queen grew up during the war, she was clearly pleased to see the fly past, plus[s] germany[/s] the Queens Great Uncle 'dragged' us into [s]two wars last century[/s] WWI leading to WWII,[/i]

FIFY

is it appropriate to celebrate beating one of your major trading partners 70 years later

Of course it is. Specially when the consequences of your major trading partner beating you, invading you, and occupying you, would have been so horrendous. Remember there are very good examples of this major trading partner doing precisely that to other major trading partners. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to celebrate.

Unless you live in a parallel universe in which both opposing sides won?

Strange; given your previous,I thought you would have been keen to claim WW11 as a British victory, while claiming that as England had the biggest population,it is only fair that England got most of the credit....While suggesting any campaign for Scottish independence is an ungrateful slap in the face for all the dead of every major conflict ever....Rather than suggest Germany lost it, which is the emphasis you put. (as noted by others)

And back to the original question; Yes a flypast is entirely appropriate.

As I said in the thread about favourite sounds. I find it a bit weird/unsettling the way so many people (well blokes actually) seem to have such a hard-on for military planes etc. Yes I enjoyed playing with model spitfires etc when I was a kid, but I grew out of it - and anyway was always taught that glorifying war wasn't something to be proud of.

Yeah you can argue it's just about remembrance and celebrating our engineering history etc - but I don't think that's the whole story for many people.

I find it a bit weird/unsettling the way so many people (well blokes actually) seem to have such a hard-on for military planes etc.

+1

But STW has helped me greatly in understanding this kind of thing to be fair.

but I don't think that's the whole story for many people.

Clearly, it isn't. For some, for sure, it is. For others it's a pile of jingoistic shite. But it's not going to stop anytime soon. There are plenty in the country who still like to do the more formal version of singing "two world wars and one world cup".

I find it a bit weird/unsettling the way so many people (well blokes actually) seem to have such a hard-on for military planes etc. Yes I enjoyed playing with model spitfires etc when I was a kid, but I grew out of it

And I find a bit weird and unsettling that anyone should equate an appreciation of the Spitfire and the role it played with sexual arousal.

Still I guess it takes all sorts.........it's a funny ol'world ain't it ?

And I find a bit weird and unsettling that anyone should equate an appreciation of the Spitfire and the role it played with sexual arousal.

It's the way you lot talk about it. It's quite clear you're getting a little bit [i]too[/i] excited about the idea of big engines, guns, explosions etc.

I love it when you talk dirty Grum.

It's the way you lot talk about it. It's quite clear you're getting a little bit too excited about the idea of big engines, guns, explosions etc.

Do you sometimes wonder what we're wearing ? As you imagine all these sexually aroused men.

And I find a bit weird and unsettling that anyone should equate an appreciation of the Spitfire and the role it played with sexual arousal.

Still I guess it takes all sorts.........it's a funny ol'world ain't it ?

[img] [/img]

Do you sometimes wonder what we're wearing ? As you imagine all these sexually aroused men.

I know exactly what you're wearing.

mind you the current Queen and her consort are Elizabeth Saxe-Coberg and Gotha and Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg....

mrmo - Member
mind you the current Queen and her consort are Elizabeth Saxe-Coberg and Gotha and Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg....

Posted 3 minutes ago # Report-Post

And? We went to war with Queen Vicky's Grandson, 😀 and we would do it again.Especially if we had democracy to uphold/WMD to protect ourselves from.

Some forget just how old the queen is. The Queen would have probably been killed during the war if it wasn't for the RAF scuppering the plans for Operation Sealion.

So it was a fitting tribute.

Also, a lot of people here know a lot about aircraft. Low boost! Not many people know about this sort of thing! IL2 Sturmovik nerds by any chance?

Flying is better than sex, unfortunately not managed to fly a Speitfire yet. Sat in one but thats it. Almost got a backseat ride in a modified P51 at Duxford once. I've never been so gutted in my life after being informed I'd have been given a ride if I'd asked 2 hours earlier!

As I said in the thread about favourite sounds. I find it a bit weird/unsettling the way so many people (well blokes actually) seem to have such a hard-on for military planes etc.

Genuinely interested in what is going on here. There can be no doubt (in my mind) that certain sounds trigger real, genuine emotional response. Too many people ar stirred by the sound of a Merlin powered aircraft for the response to be a peculiar male sexual peccadillo.

The "military" aspect is irrelevant. To me it is the pitch and volume, especially the Doppler effect that you get when an aircraft turns towards you. Hairs stand up on the neck - a classic fight or flight adrenaline response.

Same last week at the TT. There is a lot more to this. I don't see how mal sexual fantasy play any part at all.

As for the OP. Yes, can see the point. Just think of it as a historic parade. Focus is on BoB purely because UK has been very short sighted about preserving (and maintaining) a wider and more representative selection...

Oh and Grums making rather wonderful misinformed opinions. People are not masturbating over war/killing, people just enjoy old aircraft in the same way they enjoy old steam trains and old racing cars etc. They have a lot of agricultural character that modern machines do not.

Notice most of the people that like them on here, are probably engineers.

.Especially if we had .../WMD to protect ourselves from.

We don't need real WMDs, imaginary ones are clearly enough justification, especially if you have God on your side as well.

Too many people ar stirred by the sound of a Merlin powered aircraft for the response to be a peculiar male sexual peccadillo.

I wasn't [i]really[/i] claiming it was sexual, I just implied that in order to be slightly more insulting, and everyone picked up on that small part of my point for some reason. 😉

I just think it feeds into/forms part of a kind of macho, 'I'm a man's man', gung-ho, mildly jingoistic characteristic - I bet Clarkson loves war plane noises. 😉

There's lots of people (again, blokes) on here who love nothing more than to compete to prove how much they know about the latest missiles, aircraft carriers, fighter planes etc. We have a weird national obsession with the Spitfire, it's become like some kind of religious symbol.

Yeah I'm sure it's partly about the engineering etc (as I acknowledged ages ago), but it's clearly not just that, otherwise why not the same fondness for other items of engineering history from the same era? Give me a nice tractor any day over a plane designed for killing people.

[img] [/img]

You all sound a bit like the WWII re-enactors who claim it's just about the uniforms and being historically accurate then got secretly filmed professing their love for Hitler. 😛

Grum, there is LOADS of fondness for 1920's trains and cars. See all the steam train rides and the Goodwood festival.

You'll find soldiers who hate Clarkson types.

TBH I kind of agree with you to a point Grum, I ****ing hate airsofters and Clarkson types for example but don't mind reenactment societies because they contribute to societies acknowledgement of our history, I have nothing against soldiers either. Usually the latter have an understanding of what violence actually entails and are never quite to willing to endorse war as the general public are.

What a long argument. Hurray for the fly past. Why not celebrate that as a nation we stood togethor instead of being our usual devisive selves and as a war it was about the only one really worth fighting. Waving a flag doesn't always mean youre a right wing nut job and why not celebrate past history as it always repeats itself if only we weren't too dumb or arrogant to listen.

I just think it feeds into/forms part of a kind of macho, 'I'm a man's man', gung-ho.......

I bet Her Majesty loves the sight of a Spitfire flypast, despite her not being a man's man who needs to feed into her macho. Whatever the **** that means.

We have a weird national obsession with the Spitfire.....

So you think. I think not understanding how or why the Spitfire has a special place in the collective heart of the nation is weird.

Funny that.

Whatever the **** that means.

You know full well what it means. Did you leave off the word 'characteristic' from the quote to try and make it look like it doesn't make sense? Clever.

So you think. I think not understanding how or why the Spitfire has a special place in the collective heart of the nation is weird.

I understand fine thanks, doesn't mean I buy into it though. Given that many historians think the importance of the BoB (and the Spitfire) to the outcome of the war has been massively exaggerated, yes it's weird - it forms part of jingoistic national myths about our superior engineering, skill and bravery over the evil inferior Germans.

I could go on about how the Hurricane was probably more important anyway, but then I'd start to sound like one of those people who spaff over military hardware. 😉

...evil inferior Germans.

Strange, I don't know anyone that thinks the Germans were evil or inferior. In fact, most agree they were far superior where it mattered, hence out nations justifiable pride at having defeated them (even with tons of luck, for want of a better word).

FFS, not the old Hurricane vs Spitfire diatribe...again.

The facts.

Yes, the Hurricane was available earlier, in greater numbers, and was easier to fly and repair. Yes, the majority of aircraft shot down by an RAF fighter were shot down by a Hurricane. However, the Hurricane was quickly outclassed by German fighters, and later in WWII was relegated to second line duties such as ground attack. Could we have won the BoB with unlimited numbers of Hurricanes and experienced pilots? [b]NO![/b]

The Spitfire was nearly a generation ahead of the Hurricane (which was little more than a biplane with one wing taken off). It was the only fighter aircraft of any side to be built throughout WWII. It was also the only aircraft to see front line service in every theatre of operations in WWII. Its design enabled it to be developed through numerous models keeping pace with aircraft of the opposition. Could we have won the BoB with unlimited numbers of Spitfires and experienced pilots?? [b]UNDOUBTEDLY![/b]

but then I'd start to sound like one of those people who spaff over military hardware.

😛

Did you leave off the word 'characteristic' from the quote to try and make it look like it doesn't make sense? Clever.

No, I left a few other words out as well as that one - it was just an arbitrary decision where to stop the quote.

It still doesn't make much sense though, unless of course you think Her Majesty couldn't possibly have enjoyed the flypast, nor any other women for that matter.

Presumably if it feeds into/forms part of a kind of macho, 'I'm a man's man', gung-ho, mildly jingoistic characteristic, then it has no appeal to women.

BTW I'm sure Clarkson would hugely approve of your sexist stereotyping.

It strikes me that Grum is the only one here who keeps bringing up the topic of masturbation...

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9756706.Germans_horrified_by_Nazi_uniforms_at_Haworth_1940s_festival/?ref=rss

A delegation of German visitors was left shocked after being greeted by the sight of revellers dressed in Nazi SS officer uniforms at a wartime festival.

Members of the 30-strong party from Bradford’s twin town, Hamm, reacted in horror after people donned swastikas and other Nazi regalia during Haworth’s latest 1940s-style celebration.

Well - They started it 😀

Edit, days ago and i can't be arsed

I wasn't really claiming it was sexual, I just implied that in order to be slightly more insulting, and everyone picked up on that small part of my point for some reason.

I just think it feeds into/forms part of a kind of macho, 'I'm a man's man', gung-ho, mildly jingoistic characteristic - I bet Clarkson loves war plane noises.

There's lots of people (again, blokes) on here who love nothing more than to compete to prove how much they know about the latest missiles, aircraft carriers, fighter planes etc. We have a weird national obsession with the Spitfire, it's become like some kind of religious symbol.

I just implied that in order to be slightly more insulting, and everyone picked up on that small part of my point for some reason.

I remember being harangued at uni by a young lady on the phallic symbolism of missiles, aircraft etc. As CountZero says, it's actually about minimising drag and resistance. Come to think of it, I pointed out, that's why a phallus is that shape too. Not one of my more successful chat up lines. 😀

So on the basis of time available, what matters? the Romans, Angles, William the Conqueror/Bastard, Magna Carta,Tudors/Bloody Mary, Lady Jane, the Cromwellian civil war, William and Mary, the Stuarts, georgians, victoria, the rise and fall of empire

Can't neatly sum up all this with a flypast though can you?

Although arguably we were a lot more successful up until this point.

What about the float by, that had boats from our other great victory at Dunkirk. Should they have been there for Queeny to wave at?