BBMF Lanc Engine Fire
Every cloud though, Ds....It still allowed them to slip in the de rigueur comment about the Bombing Offensive.
"Unfortunately no Lancaster in the RAF Flypast"
'No, but at least the Fighters will still be here'
"Bomber Command of course very controversial still".
'Yes, especially given the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in February'
Something has to be done about the BBC and its predictable prejudice. Having grudgingly concluded that the British war effort as a whole was vital to the defeat of Fascist tyranny, it satisfies itself with making an enormous part of that effort an exception, ie that of Bomber Command, whilst always regretting the 55573 deaths that it cost of course.
"Unfortunately no Lancaster in the RAF Flypast"
'No, but at least the Fighters will still be here'
"Bomber Command of course very controversial still".
'Yes, especially given the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in February'
Something has to be done about the BBC and its predictable prejudice. Having grudgingly concluded that the British war effort as a whole was vital to the defeat of Fascist tyranny, it satisfies itself with making an enormous part of that effort an exception, ie that of Bomber Command, whilst always regretting the 55573 deaths that it cost of course.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 10th May 2015 at 12:44. Reason: Spielin
A National Broadcaster not proud of its Lancasters?
Ridiculous!
The Lancaster Bomber- D-Day's Workhorse - The National - CBC Player
15 mins HD - Some good in-flight shots, and interviews
Ridiculous!
The Lancaster Bomber- D-Day's Workhorse - The National - CBC Player
15 mins HD - Some good in-flight shots, and interviews
Notwithstanding rewriting history [NAZIS ....... never Germans] the BBC trendies had a rough Election night, I bet!
Tough.
****e Ory.
Tough.
****e Ory.
The comment about Dresden was made by the co-commentator - a representative of the Imperial War Museum and not a BBC employee.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.
I'm also under no illusions that my views are not held by all who post here. No problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that a national broadcasting organisation, funded by taxation, takes a detached view of "the British", as the BBC does. Does it ever contemplate its own name, and what it should mean?
Is the damage really going to be that bad ? Surely that bit of metal called a firewall will have served its purpose to a large extent ? Certainly the cabling etc aft the firewall looks in good condition, so maybe ( fingers crossed ) its an engine / bearer change and some rewiring.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,836
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
These days they tend to follow civil standards so yes, plus it depends on parts too.
there'll always be at least two schools of thought chugalug
Geoff Taylor (The Hollow Square and Piece of Cake) had a kind
of day of reckoning much later. He had bombed Dresden.
Interviewed twenty years ago on the ABC he said he believed
the fire bombing of innocent civilians was akin to the committing
of atrocities.
This short film is a good reminder of the deaths, the wholesale
destruction and the mental torture. Rollo Kingsford Smith was a
nephew of Charles Kingsford Smith. Rollo became head
of the Hawker de Havilland company in Sydney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6aPUMv6tk
Geoff Taylor (The Hollow Square and Piece of Cake) had a kind
of day of reckoning much later. He had bombed Dresden.
Interviewed twenty years ago on the ABC he said he believed
the fire bombing of innocent civilians was akin to the committing
of atrocities.
This short film is a good reminder of the deaths, the wholesale
destruction and the mental torture. Rollo Kingsford Smith was a
nephew of Charles Kingsford Smith. Rollo became head
of the Hawker de Havilland company in Sydney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6aPUMv6tk
That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.
fantome, as I said previously, I have no problem with differing views on the RAF's Bombing campaign, or for that matter any other contentious matters. If the BBC simply stuck to reporting such differences, then again no problem.
The problem is that the BBC has corporate views and sees no problem in expressing them, whether it be politics, military, industrial, economic, or half a hundred other topics. That may be acceptable for commercially owned channels and newspapers, but it is unacceptable for a corporation that is funded out of our taxes. The only views that we should hear from it are reported ones. As it is the daily grilling of those being interviewed by its aggressive presenters tell us far more about the views of the latter than the former.
Interesting that the reported exchange that I and others object to has been edited out of the repeat. Wasn't something we said I hope?
The problem is that the BBC has corporate views and sees no problem in expressing them, whether it be politics, military, industrial, economic, or half a hundred other topics. That may be acceptable for commercially owned channels and newspapers, but it is unacceptable for a corporation that is funded out of our taxes. The only views that we should hear from it are reported ones. As it is the daily grilling of those being interviewed by its aggressive presenters tell us far more about the views of the latter than the former.
Interesting that the reported exchange that I and others object to has been edited out of the repeat. Wasn't something we said I hope?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Controversial? Absolute horse****.
The UK has been able and willing to inflict nuclear retribution on its enemies for the last 60 years or so. The U.S. actually did!
I fail to see the difference between firebombing an enemy city and nuking it, in terms of civilian casualties.
If you don't want that to happen, then play nicely at the outset, or the big boys will come and kick your arse right out of the playground.
The UK has been able and willing to inflict nuclear retribution on its enemies for the last 60 years or so. The U.S. actually did!
I fail to see the difference between firebombing an enemy city and nuking it, in terms of civilian casualties.
If you don't want that to happen, then play nicely at the outset, or the big boys will come and kick your arse right out of the playground.
I can but agree with your succinctly expressed views R280. What really gets my goat is when the blame for the Offensive is placed on Bomber Harris, with the quickly added view that the crews had no option, as though they were mere enslaved automatons. They were all volunteers and many who were not selected for Bomber Command wished to be part of it.
Of course Harris made blood curdling speeches about reaping whirlwinds. That was his job, to put fire in the bellies of his crews. It's called leadership. Similarly he tried to inflict as much damage on the enemy with as little damage as possible to his own side. That was his job. Hence BC flew at night, hence area targets, hence cities.
It is ironic that because it flew by night BC was unescorted, whereas the USAAF was eventually, by day. Hence the latter could target the more predictable and therefore well defended "panacea" sites such as fuel plants. Fighters started to move the goal posts, whether Mustangs by day or Bf 110s by night. When the fuel ran out so did the latter.
As it was the war was carried to the enemy by day and by night for most of the war. Speer said it was another front, certainly it made D-Day possible which in turn liberated Western Europe. I'd say that was something to be proud of. If the BBC doesn't agree so be it, but might I suggest that it is time it keeps its harping on to itself from now on? Then I will, I promise.
Of course Harris made blood curdling speeches about reaping whirlwinds. That was his job, to put fire in the bellies of his crews. It's called leadership. Similarly he tried to inflict as much damage on the enemy with as little damage as possible to his own side. That was his job. Hence BC flew at night, hence area targets, hence cities.
It is ironic that because it flew by night BC was unescorted, whereas the USAAF was eventually, by day. Hence the latter could target the more predictable and therefore well defended "panacea" sites such as fuel plants. Fighters started to move the goal posts, whether Mustangs by day or Bf 110s by night. When the fuel ran out so did the latter.
As it was the war was carried to the enemy by day and by night for most of the war. Speer said it was another front, certainly it made D-Day possible which in turn liberated Western Europe. I'd say that was something to be proud of. If the BBC doesn't agree so be it, but might I suggest that it is time it keeps its harping on to itself from now on? Then I will, I promise.
Why don't you guys say whom you are quoting when you quote? If it's too technically difficult for you, do feel free to ask.
Apart from whatever outrage the BBC has caused, it's funny to note that both ends of the political spectrum appear to be equally outraged. That either means they just piss everyone off just for fun or they're pretty even.
It is their role to report and, sometimes, that means expressing views (not necessarily those of the newscasters) that you don't like.
If you think there's a corporate conspiracy going on there, you have no idea how any journalism works. British television and radio enjoys the services some of the world's best journalists. The suits in the office upstairs don't send them little notes telling them to ignore all the research they did (in some war-torn arse end of the word, for example) and instead substitute some fictitious party line. The professional journos would have left years ago if that were the case.
Apart from whatever outrage the BBC has caused, it's funny to note that both ends of the political spectrum appear to be equally outraged. That either means they just piss everyone off just for fun or they're pretty even.
It is their role to report and, sometimes, that means expressing views (not necessarily those of the newscasters) that you don't like.
If you think there's a corporate conspiracy going on there, you have no idea how any journalism works. British television and radio enjoys the services some of the world's best journalists. The suits in the office upstairs don't send them little notes telling them to ignore all the research they did (in some war-torn arse end of the word, for example) and instead substitute some fictitious party line. The professional journos would have left years ago if that were the case.
To talk of a nuclear offensive or defensive as an effective response
is to open again that huge can of worms where the pragmatists
have to repeat ad nauseam that once those warheads are fired off
to their targets , you know what?
THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROW
is to open again that huge can of worms where the pragmatists
have to repeat ad nauseam that once those warheads are fired off
to their targets , you know what?
THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROW
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,836
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Sorry I cannot get upset over all of these so called "experts"
I tend to look at them and wonder how would they feel standing inline for a shower at Belsen, or being beaten to death in Burma.
I often wonder if put in that situation with the means to defend themselves would they roll over and die, or fight to survive.
As for Dresden, well Dresden would still be standing if they hadn't started a war against us in the first place, and their memories seem to forget the likes of Coventry.
I tend to look at them and wonder how would they feel standing inline for a shower at Belsen, or being beaten to death in Burma.
I often wonder if put in that situation with the means to defend themselves would they roll over and die, or fight to survive.
As for Dresden, well Dresden would still be standing if they hadn't started a war against us in the first place, and their memories seem to forget the likes of Coventry.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I'm delighted that what could have been a much more significant incident was handled so well. I hope and trust that such an important part of our history is back up in the air, where it should be, as soon as possible. Aviation is never entirely safe, but the risks in flinging a Lanc the best part of a century old about the sky are quite something - as are the reasons it's done
As for the debate over the morality of the bombing campaign - I don't think this will ever be settled, not in our lifetimes nor for some time after that. I can see the arguments from all sides, and I know enough not to know the answer. History is like that. That people are still engaged and discussing this is a good thing: I would hate to live in a culture where strong views and conflict in good faith were taboo or outlawed, and that I don't is absolutely a result of sacrifices made before I was born.
But I must defend the BBC.It has faults. It can be rancid. It also has special responsibilities. I work for it from time to time and know many people in it, and some of them have themselves been in great personal danger while doing their jobs. Most, in fact the vast majority I know and work with, are passionate about fairness - while knowing it's impossible to hit the mark every time; there's no Spock-like path to making perfect editorial decisions - and unlike many other areas of the media it's actually part of the BBC's official remit to be fair. I've seen complaints, some of a frankly farcical and trivial nature, go all the way up to the very top, with a lot of work and distress attached, because the complainant refused to accept any findings until all options were completely exhausted. If you do think Aunty's being unfair and want to prove it, then while I can't guarantee that your complaint will be dealt with to your satisfaction, you can at least expect it to be taken seriously if you're prepared to make it seriously.
Which is a long-winded and pompous way of saying that despite knowing quite how wretched it can be at its worst, I'm proud of being a very small part of what it does. We'd be a lot poorer without it. By all means damn the organisation, but please remember - a lot of good people try hard to make it better, every day. Perhaps those who've worked for other places with a public duty and that attract criticism will recognise that state of affairs...
As for the debate over the morality of the bombing campaign - I don't think this will ever be settled, not in our lifetimes nor for some time after that. I can see the arguments from all sides, and I know enough not to know the answer. History is like that. That people are still engaged and discussing this is a good thing: I would hate to live in a culture where strong views and conflict in good faith were taboo or outlawed, and that I don't is absolutely a result of sacrifices made before I was born.
But I must defend the BBC.It has faults. It can be rancid. It also has special responsibilities. I work for it from time to time and know many people in it, and some of them have themselves been in great personal danger while doing their jobs. Most, in fact the vast majority I know and work with, are passionate about fairness - while knowing it's impossible to hit the mark every time; there's no Spock-like path to making perfect editorial decisions - and unlike many other areas of the media it's actually part of the BBC's official remit to be fair. I've seen complaints, some of a frankly farcical and trivial nature, go all the way up to the very top, with a lot of work and distress attached, because the complainant refused to accept any findings until all options were completely exhausted. If you do think Aunty's being unfair and want to prove it, then while I can't guarantee that your complaint will be dealt with to your satisfaction, you can at least expect it to be taken seriously if you're prepared to make it seriously.
Which is a long-winded and pompous way of saying that despite knowing quite how wretched it can be at its worst, I'm proud of being a very small part of what it does. We'd be a lot poorer without it. By all means damn the organisation, but please remember - a lot of good people try hard to make it better, every day. Perhaps those who've worked for other places with a public duty and that attract criticism will recognise that state of affairs...