[Closed] appropriateness of the battle of britain flypast.

Like winning the World Cup in 1966?

+1 for OP.

slainte ➡ rob

What druidh says

Ssshhhhe...
[IMG] [/IMG]

Jubilee, blah.......

Like winning the World Cup in 1966?

We should have kept one Concorde flying for such an event.
Why the Dakota? Not exactly exciting.
Imagine a Harrier dipping in front of HRH. That would have been good.

I think you're wrong.

Remembering the past might just help us postpone making the same mistakes again.

I don't think kids today know enough about WW2 - the allied victory was an amazing achievement.
The principles of freedom and democracy that millions fought and died for can so easily be taken away.
They seem even more precious when you realise how close we came to losing them.

We need to be reminded of the cost of our freedom and of those who made the sacrifices that enable us to live in a society that is so much better than the alternative.

If they flew them over Dresden that would be pretty offensive.

As it is, it's celebrating a UK/allies achievement, and AFAIK the Germans aren't exactly shouting about the war.

You couldn't have any modern war planes doing a flypast, that would just look like we were glorifying the illegal wars we have been fighting recently. I guess Harriers from the Falklands War would be OK, if we had any available. Or perhaps Jaguars from the Gulf War, ditto.

We should have kept one Concorde flying for such an event.
Why the Dakota? Not exactly exciting.
Imagine a Harrier dipping in front of HRH. That would have been good.

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?

Just thinking it might help the british mindset to stop thinking about the past so much, why is there so much effort over steam trains, maybe we should look at the rest of the world and develop the best electric trains? etc. Don't focus on Spitfires but on what is coming through now?

I think Typhoons would be great as well. They knocked out an awful lot of panzers in northern France after all........ 🙂

its a bit like north Korea!

Would you rather see an e type go past or a metro?
We have done some good stuff , I like to see it.

Would you rather see an e type go past or a metro?

For some, I think this would be more appropriate;
[img] [/img]

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?

Seriously!? I suggest you read up on aviation history if you don't think both these planes aren't significant in aerospace engineering history. The UK has an aerospace heritage that it can be rightly proud of (and still today! Not many industries you can say that about)

Bloody hell reading posts like this is like listening to Jeremy Vine and some of the daft scenarios and questions he poses. Nice bit of nostalgia watching planes like that fly over.

thekingisdead - Member
Seriously!? I suggest you read up on aviation history if you don't think both these planes aren't significant in aerospace engineering history. The UK has an aerospace heritage that it can be rightly proud of (and still today! Not many industries you can say that about)

why a metro or an allegro, something british and a bit more recent?

[img] [/img]

Seriously!? I suggest you read up on aviation history if you don't think both these planes aren't significant in the aerospace engineering history. The UK has an aerospace heritage that it can be rightly proud of (and still today! Not many industries you can say that about)

They are very significant in HISTORY, that is my point, are you saying the best british plane ever built was in the 1960s and that since then we have done nothing that rivals them? Celebrate the past by all means but not if it means you loose sight of the future.

Probably got something to do that without those planes and more importantly the men that flew them we wouldn't have a monarchy.

For the older generation like myself whose parents played an active part in WWII it's a bit more poignant. My old ma lost both her parents in the blitz then joined the land army and my late dad served in Bomber Command.

They are very significant in HISTORY, that is my point, are you saying the best british plane ever built was in the 1960s and that since then we have done nothing that rivals them? Celebrate the past by all means but not if it means you loose sight of the future.

Fair enough! I read it in isolation and thought you were slating the harrier and Concorde! As you were 😀

why is there so much effort over steam trains, maybe we should look at the rest of the world and develop the best electric trains?

Are steam trains not generally maintained by volunteers/enthusiasts? I can't imagine there is a massive industry keeping these things going.

Personally I like seeing the WW2 stuff, but I reckon the fly-past would have been even better today if they'd had a mix of old and new... (yes I know they had the 'arrows but they are pretty 70's) the WW2 stuff followed by a couple of Typhoons, and even some bigger modern stuff would be good.

I live near Biggin Hill and the last air-fair they did featured a Typhoon following a Spitfire - looked very cool.

Rusty Spanner - Member

I think you're wrong.

Remembering the past might just help us postpone making the same mistakes again.

I don't think kids today know enough about WW2 - the allied victory was an amazing achievement.
The principles of freedom and democracy that millions fought and died for can so easily be taken away.
They seem even more precious when you realise how close we came to losing them.

Helped in no small part by the Russian Communist regime, but as you say, kids today don't know enough about it.

1

Out of interest, which bits of british history should kids be taught? i left school 20years ago, i seem to remember not being taught anything about modern history. It was taught chronologically starting with romans, maybe earlier and if you didn't do GCSEs/A levels you didn't do more modern history. What i know is through reading and talking about it.

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 the commonwealth, the 50's and 60's? WW1 and WW2, it is fair to say the UK has a vast history, but should we limit history to merely ours? should it be extended to included those countries that have suffered/benefitted, or even further? Do we need to know why there are Ghurkas in the british army and why they are treated differently to those in the Indian Army?

Just seems to me that in some ways whilst kids should know about the second world war, is it the most crucial point in our history, how do you give it context, WW2 is in part the result of WW1 which is the result of the alliances set up through treaties and marriages between royal families.

How many people are taught about the slave trade, the reason why so many Caribbean's came to the UK after the war, why Indians came over in the '70's etc.

Remembering the past might just help us postpone making the same mistakes again.

Then we should be remembering the politics that led to war, not the actions of war itself.

1) appropriate/innaproporiate is so misused it should be removed from the lexicon.
2) lots of our grandparents willingly gave their lives to fight tyranny and oppression, I'm glad they did, I'm glad I don't have to. I also like to rmeber them as often as possible, if I marched off a landing craft at D-Day and got shot whithin a few seconds I'd like to think that people thanked me for it for a bloody long time to come.
3) They are fricking awesome aircraft.

freeagent - Member

I live near Biggin Hill and the last air-fair they did featured a Typhoon following a Spitfire - looked very cool.

That would've been good... I love that combo, the spitfire going absolutely flat out and the typhoon just doing its best not to stop dead and fall out of the sky.

That would've been good... I love that combo, the spitfire going as fast as they dare to avoid unnecessary wear and tear (i.e. part throttle low boost only) and the typhoon just doing its best not to stop dead and fall out of the sky.

FTFY

If and when I ever win multiple millions on the lottery I don't play, I shall buy two Spitfires, and I promise to show one at an airshow flying at maximum throttle maximum emergency boost.

Beautiful sound........gives me goosebumps and a lump in my throat, specially when heard over the rolling North Downs in Kent. That sound helped sustain morale and confidence during [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkest_Hour ]The Darkest Hour[/url] and struck fear right into Gerry's heart.

struck fear right into Gerry's heart.

LOL took me a few seconds to work that out drlex........made me laugh though 😀

That would've been good... I love that combo, the spitfire going as fast as they dare to avoid unnecessary wear and tear (i.e. part throttle low boost only) and the typhoon [s]just doing its best not to stop dead and fall out of the sky[/s] flying slowly with leading edge slats partially extended with its excellent low speed handling characteristics and FCS doing the work.

You need to look up the word 'pedantic'. I'll give you a clue, it hinges on whether the level of detail is unnecessary or superfluous.

Regardless, the Typhoon actually IS doing it's best not to fall out of the sky. Yes, is it using multiple computers with very sophistic flight envelope software and various aerodynamic aids to do so. Actually the Typhoon is 'doing it's best not to fall out of the sky' regardless of speed, as are a great many modern software controlled aircraft.

Regardless of the appropriateness, there is NOTHING that could beat the sound of 9 Merlin engines flying overhead (5 Hurricanes/Spits & 1 Lancaster)!

speed12, not sure they were all Merlins. Think one of them had a Griffon.

Is that my anorak? Thanks.....

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. Jaguar? No longer in use. Harrier? Sold 'em off. Vulcan? Lovely, but the only one flying is privately owned. Tornado? Well, I [i]think[/i] we've got one or two left.
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.

Hey, look, we both like planes and internet forums. Who cares? 🙂

Regardless of the appropriateness, there is NOTHING that could beat the sound of 9 Merlin engines flying overhead (5 Hurricanes/Spits & 1 Lancaster)!

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. Jaguar? No longer in use. Harrier? Sold 'em off. Vulcan? Lovely, but the only one flying is privately owned. Tornado? Well, I think we've got one or two left.
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.

We're just waiting for the F-35

[Double post]

Perhaps that economically, Europe's leaders are more or less at each others throats in blame game, as ecomomies crumble, with one apparent country appearing to have all the power in negotiations, placing restrictions and its own economic agneda on those countries - which the "man in the street" might deem unfair, the appropriateness of the Battle of Britain Memorial flight, simply as a reminder to how badly things can go wrong,is more sentient today than at any time in the last 60 years.

speed12, not sure they were all Merlins. Think one of them had a Griffon.

Is that my anorak? Thanks.....

Haha, well one Merlin on its own is a glorious noise so any others are a bonus!

Haha, well one Merlin on its own is a glorious noise so any others are a bonus!

I agree, wholeheartedly!

What a noise!

.......Battle of Britain Memorial flight, simply as a reminder to how badly things can go wrong

What you talking about.....we had a brilliant war, it went rather well.

And the Battle of Britain Memorial flight is an excellent reminder of that.

What you talking about.....we had a brilliant war, it went rather well.

And the peace that followed? seems like Germany won after all? Just seems to me if we had spent less time talking about the war and '66 we might not be so far in the $hit?

What a noise!

Noise ? It's a roar ffs.

The British Lion roared.

I'm biased as my dad fought in the BoB & his brother died whilst flying in Lancaster's & his other brother died flying gliders at Arnhem.

As said previously, it's not just the planes but the people behind them.
The sound of that Merlin engine though is just the canines.

my dad fought in the BoB & his brother died whilst flying in Lancaster's & his other brother died flying gliders at Arnhem

A little dusty in here tonight.

Thank you to all three of them.

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

Of sun-split clouds...and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of...wheeled and soared and swung

High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,

I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung

My eager craft through footless halls of air.

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace

Where never lark, or even eagle flew.

And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod

The high untrespassed sanctity of space

Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

.

I'd sooner see Concorde flanked by a few Typhoons.

Preferably at Mach 2 for extra noisy points.

seems like Germany won after all?

WTF are you on about, have you had your brain rewired to be a daily mail AI machine?

Your right there Bernie Lynch it did go rather well didn't it.... The sound of that Merlin engine is something else thats for sure, so no not over the top for me and a fitting tribute to the 'Few'.

We have no conception of how miserable and immoral our lives, and our children's lives, would have been if subject to Nazi ideology. Those Battle of Britain pilots flying those planes saved our nation from invasion, saved our ideas of justice and freedom. Ultimately this allowed the mustering of sufficient strength to liberate all Europe from tyranny. "Never ... has so much been owed by so many to so few". The fly-past is totally appropriate IMO.

The BBMF 's motto us "Lest we forget".

Amen to that

and while we're at it:

Helped in no small part by the Russian Communist regime, but as you say, kids today don't know enough about it.

indeed they don't

during the Battle Of Britain the "Russian Communist regime" were busy observing the non-agression pact they'd signed with Nazi Germany the year before, and occupying half of Poland. They didn't get involved until Hitler stabbed them in the back with Operation Barbarossa in the summer of '41, by which time of course, the Battle Of Britain had already been won, or perhaps more accurately, lost.

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

This of course was retaliation for an RAF raid on Berlin, which in turn was retaliation for an [i]accidental[/i] bombing of London a few nights earlier. And it was the saving of RAF Fighter Command.

OK I'm not sure how the BBMF is relevant to the Jubilee but a load of Merlins (and a couple of Griffons) certainly sound nicer than a few jet engines. And the Spitfire is truly a beautiful aircraft. So let's admire it for what it is.

** The BBMF is crewed by serving RAF ground and aircrew on a volunteer basis. OK the airframes take some looking after, but in the scale of things, it's not much to ask

...were busy observing the non-agression pact they'd signed with Nazi Germany the year before, and occupying half of Poland.

What an ill-informed and misleading comment. As the Nazi/German threat appeared and grew, the Soviet Union was keen to establish a pact with Britain and France. However both Britain and France would have none of it, believing a better eastern ally against an emerging Germany would be Poland - a huge miscalculation, as events proved. The USSR would have signed a pact with Britain, but Britain's hostile attitude towards it left it feeling isolated and threaten by the growing German menace. Consequently the USSR felt the best option, if not the only option left, was to sign a non-aggression treaty with Germany. However as a result of Germany's failure to honour its obligations to non-aggression, the USSR [i]"tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine"[/i] to use Winston Churchill's words. In the meantime our "most loyal and trusted ally" the USA, did absolutely nothing. Until they themselves were attacked.

Sadly the real turn of events doesn't quite match what some people would like to believe, and of course have others believe. So it's generally ignored or denied.

My father-in-law has two merlin engines in storage for a "project", but i have never heard one run 🙁
He has an Allison in a P-51A and a Pratt & Whitney radial retro-fitted in a Yak-11 running. Both of those are thunderous!
He restores old aircraft as a hobby... Alright for some! 😯 I digress...

In the meantime our "most loyal and trusted ally" the USA, did absolutely nothing. Until they themselves were attacked.

And far from winning the war single handed for us, their own figures (taken from US Wikipedia) show that if we look at total human sacrifice measured as deaths as a percent of population the US comes 40th in the list, behind other allies such as the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, France, and the country that suffered the greatest loss…Poland. If one wants to look at total deaths only, the US comes 16th, behind such allies as the UK, France, India, and of course Poland. Kind of puts things into perspective.

What an ill-informed and misleading comment.

perhaps. I was being flippant. it doesn't take away from the fact that, from the fall of France in May 1940 until June 1941, the USSR was not actively involved in what was, up until then, a largely European war (apart from Japan/China in the far east).

As we know the USA was not [i]actively[/i] involved until December 1941, but it certainly was involved in supplying Britain with ships, food, aircraft etc

I took my Step Dad to the RIAT a few years ago. He was 82 and saw the war first hand.

When the flypast happened, he was totally absorbed. "They saved us, " he said with tears in his eyes. I had known this great man for 30 years and here he was stood before me with an expression I didn't recognise. He never talked about the war and the things he had experienced but clearly these old planes meant a lot to him.

I don't get the relevance of using the battle of Britain aircraft for the flypast. The event was to mark 60 years of the Queens reign which began more than a decade after the battle of Britain. If the aircraft had played a significant part in defending the country during the the Queens reign then it could have been deemed appropriate but they didn't. So to answer the original question was it appropriate? No it wasn't.

If they wanted a flypast then maybe a series of aircraft that were introduced over the last 60 years would have been more appropriate.

Wasn't a significant part of the whole jubilee thing about nostalgia? I'd have thought that the BBMF fitted in perfectly with the occasion? I also agree that a fly past of a series of aircraft introduced thoroughout her reign would have been better

Also, didn't the USA spend a significant amount of time and effort avoiding supplying the UK with any ships and other resources during the first few years of the second world war? Genuine question. That was what I thought went on.

There were few other props for our backward looking jingoistic act of national masturbation.

I have no idea what that means. I'm gonna google it......... 😕

it doesn't take away from the fact that, from the fall of France in May 1940 until June 1941, the USSR was not actively involved in what was, up until then, a largely European war

No, why would they be ? Britain and France weren't interested in striking a deal with the USSR, what did you expect the USSR to do apart from trying to come to some sort of non-aggression treaty with Germany ? Attack Germany as soon as Britain and France declare war on it ?

The USSR was keen for Britain and France to help them fight fascism in Spain - which as everyone knows was the dress rehearsal for World War II. But Britain and France would have none of it, leaving the USSR alone in helping to attempt to stem the growing military threat posed by fascism. In fact Britain and France did more than just nothing, they actively hindered the struggle against fascism by punishing all those those who attempted to help. So whilst the German Nazis and Italian Fascists were honing their skills in Spain, and the USSR was supplying huge quantities of equipment and military advisers to counter this, Britain and France helped to guarantee victory for the fascists. The Spanish government would have easily won had Britain and France helped.

And yes, as you quite rightly point out, the USA did see a business opportunity in supplying Britain with ships, food, aircraft etc, which helped to lift it out of economic depression, but that's hardly a huge sacrifice for a "most loyal and trusted ally". Let's remember that contrary to your completely false claim, the Battle of Britain was won, and that was no thanks to the United States. It could easily have been lost, a risk which our most loyal and trusted ally was perfectly prepared to take. The United States also turned its back on France, with at one time considering the pro-fascist Vichy government to be more valuable to them than the Free French government in exile in London. It was only Churchill's adamant insistence which forced them to reluctantly accept De Gaulle. France has never forgotten the United States appalling lack of support and goes to the root cause of De Gaulle's mistrust of the United States, even within NATO, and its determination of independent defence. It still colours France's attitude to this day - it was even prevalent in the run up to the Iraq war. I could carry on, but I think I'll stop there.....

Beautiful plane the Spitfire btw. It would be nice to see it more often.

EDIT : btw john_drummer, how many "ships and aircraft" did the US supply Britain ? I thought Britain did quite well supplying its own. Wasn't easy I know, with the Germans bombing the crap out of Britain, but managed somehow.

There were few other props for our backward looking jingoistic act of national masturbation.

It's very important to remind oursleves of our history. Unfortunately we wallow in it and hold onto instituions that have no relevance to today or the future.

Our future currently, is to look back.

And yes, as you quite rightly point out, the USA did see a business opportunity in supplying Britain with ships, food, aircraft etc,

It was more than that. The US sought to restrict the UK which was a rival to it as an economic and political world power, in the 20's and 30's with stuff like the naval treaties.

Make no mistake, some would say this was about democracy Vs fascism, but it was also about the US taking over the World power slot the UK had.

I find the "special relationship" laughable.

There are no friends in international relations, only interests.

I was out for a ride around the moors of Keighley a few years back when a Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane flew up the valley.

Was the most amazing site, they are actually beautiful aircraft to watch fly and the noise is just some thing else.

If it had been modern fighter aircraft it would have been a raging screaming noise and been very forgetable.

I didnt watch many of the weekends royalist stuff but I think it probably was appropiate. Its all about Britian and British ness and the Lancater and Spitfire are 100% symbols of both. Then theres the fact that if they hadn't been about, then perhaps the UK would not have had any monarchy after WW2.

It was my understanding that because there was a presidential election looming at the start of the war, the americans would not risk losing votes by going against public opinion and supplying great britain with ships. especially given that they actually believed that we were about to lose and such ships would likely end up in the hands of hitler.

there is nothing wrong with looking back to see where you have been. indeed i think its pretty important. but as already noted it is more important to look forward and to not dwell on things that happened a long time ago.

No, why would they be ? Britain and France weren't interested in striking a deal with the USSR, what did you expect the USSR to do apart from trying to come to some sort of non-aggression treaty with Germany ? Attack Germany as soon as Britain and France declare war on it ?

you miss my point. a previous poster had said something about people missing out the help provided by the "Russian Communist regime"; I was pointing out that said regime was not involved during the BOB.

Let's remember that contrary to your completely false claim, the Battle of Britain was won,

which false claim was that then? that the Battle of Britain was lost?

not exactly a false claim, more a recent supposition that, had the Luftwaffe continued to attack the RAF rather than switching to attacking cities, the battle of attrition would sooner or later have ended with no serviceable fighters or trained pilots left on the "home team". The RAF was losing a number of aircraft every day and were not replacing them at the same rate. Eventually we would have run out of fighters, and then what?

Britain did not supply its own P40 warhawk/kittyhawk/callemwhatyouwill-hawk aircraft as used during the desert war, nor any of the early model Mustangs, Wildcats (Martlets in RN terms), Hudsons, Catalinas etc as used throughout the early years of the war. They were American aircraft, supplied through the Lend-Lease agreement, along with any number of Liberty Ships used in the North Atlantic convoys. Let's also not forget the M2 Stuart/Honey, M3 Lee/Grant and eventually M4 Sherman and its derivatives (ok, by now the USA was in the war). Why do you think Britain was bankrupt after the war? Had to pay the USA back for all those planes, ships, tanks etc.

if they hadn't been about, then perhaps the UK would not have had any monarchy after WW2.

I'm not sure about that 🙂

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/britains-wouldbe-nazi-queen-1312830.html ]Britain's would-be Nazi Queen[/url]

double delayed post

not exactly a false claim, more a recent supposition that, had the Luftwaffe continued to .......

Never mind about what might have happened had the Luftwaffe done something different, they did what they did. And contrary to your false claim, the Battle of Britain was won by Britain.

Although I'm glad you agree that it was a close thing ..... no thanks to the United States eh ?

And I asked you "how many ships and aircraft did the US supply Britain", I'm not interested in the what exactly they were. I want to know how many of Britain's total were supplied by the United States, eg, how many of the aircraft during the crucial Battle of Britain came from the US ?

no thanks at all to the US, I'll agree there. as for the Battle Of Britain, again, nothing at all from the US in terms of aircraft, ammunition etc. I'll grant you that. but that was not your original question.

In terms of the rest of the war, well, Hollywood would have us believe that the US won it single handedly; we all know that's completely true, don't we 😉

whether the Battle Of Britain was won by Britain or lost by Germany is a matter of semantics, surely. It was a great tactical, if not strategic, mistake to switch from attacking the RAF to attacking cities. Let's say Britain won but would have had a much harder job of it had the Luftwaffe not switched targets.

Great planes, I'd rather they were flown on appropriate days than for the family of which one member betrayed his country giving the Nazis the allied defence plan.

The Lancaster could still be useful - fly the thing over Berlin dropping pro-eurobond propaganda.

The UK was still paying off US WWII loans after Gulf war II. The US wrote off debts for many countries but not Britain. One version I've heard is that it was Atlees's opposition to the use of the atomic bomb in Korea that meant Britain paid to the bitter end - well at least the Yanks didn't use the bomb. Google brings up nothing so if anyone can confirm or refute.

Rewriting history and speculation about what could have been aren't very useful. Learnig from it and working on building a less xenophobic Europe more profitable.

Imagine a Harrier dipping in front of HRH. That would have been good.

This! 😀

Let's say Britain won ......

Yes Please. God I've been feeling patriotic the last few days.....and I'm an immigrant ! 😀

Although in my defence my father did help you guys by being a Free French member of the RAF.

The RAF was losing a number of aircraft every day and were not replacing them at the same rate. Eventually we would have run out of fighters, and then what?

Actually, the shortage was trained Pilots, not aircraft.

The UK was still paying off US WWII loans after Gulf war II. The US wrote off debts for many countries but not Britain. One version I've heard is that it was Atlees's opposition to the use of the atomic bomb in Korea that meant Britain paid to the bitter end...

The US has a long history of shafting us. We gave them all our data for our Miles M.52 sound barrier attempt aircraft and were promised all their data in return. Instead they refused to give us any of their data and used our tailplane design for their record breaking Bell XS.1 aircraft. Same with nuclear technology, we gave them everything we had, they quickly passed a law banning the export of nuclear technology.