90 Years of the RAF - BBC2

[mustpost]

Civilian here, will delete thread if necessary after flak.
BBC2 (Scotland- 11/12/08) 2000-2130 History of the RAF
What was it about? Comments?
Or was it just me?

[junglie-driver]

Suprised they managed an hour and a half.......:O

[airsound]

It's on BBC2 (rest of the world) Friday 12 Dec 2100.

airsound

[mustpost]

Jockistan calling then Airsound, unless you've had a preview don't hold your breath. I'll keep the thread open for comments.

[neilf92]

I didn't like it - not enough content and too much wasted time.

[mustpost]

Re the previous poster, couldn't agree more - tosh, and underlying fluffy/huggy bits as well. A badly made programme all round, and I make 'em. (not bad ones!) Look forward to the comments tonight. Don't forget the chance to complain officially....

[60024]

A very poor programme.

Not enough about the 'RAF at 90', which was the title after all. Most of it was history, with random speaking clock recordings over modern film of Docklands, long pauses whilst veterans wandered around an old airfield and looked over the railings of a cross channel ferry. Only the last 5 minutes or so covered modern overseas ops and gave a false impression due to the way the film was put together. I don't think JP had any sort of prepared script, judging by the number of pauses, repetition and umm....errs.....

Some of the most interesting clips showed the Cup Final when the zeppelin appeared low overhead.

And to think the programme had official blessing :ugh:

[Butty]

You're right - It wasn't the RAF at 90, neither was it a comprehensive history of the RAF. I think the "snapshots" they gave were the thinking behind the development of Air Power and the effect those developments had on crews. If that was the aim then the programme probably succeeded, although there was no comparison between how a modern "bomber" force operates and the WW2 bomber raids given such a lot of coverage. They (whoever "they" are) could, however, have made several far better programmes. How about a history which included technology - changes in airframes, radar, jet engines, AAR, VSTOL.....etc or a portrait of the RAF today featuring not just pilots?
An interesting documentary, perhaps, but all in all a missed opportunity.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Can you "do" the history of the RAF in 90 mins? Were they trying to? The RAF at 90---- must have missed that bit, unless it was Typhoon at Cottesmore. All,in all a very poor attempt totally lacking direction, control and meaning, meandering into poorly edited sound bites, seemingly thrown together, in a hurry, at the last minute, in fact very much a labour government production! (:E sorry for that)

[Wiretensioner]

I thought JP came across ok. At least it was him and not the loud mouth 'I am an aviation expert now' that used to sit behind him!

Wiretensioner

[Benjybh]

At least it was him and not the loud mouth 'I am an aviation expert now' that used to sit behind him!I haven't got a problem with John Nichol - to be fair, he is a good a candidate as any to host TV programmes about planes, surely? Better than Ross Kemp and the Army, for example...

[minigundiplomat]

I think that by the time we reach the 100 years of the RAF, the service may well have been consigned to history. Certainly so if Torpy's 'strong' leadership is anything to go by.

[maximo ping]

And I'm not sure that many outside of Typhoon-land will give much of a stuff... :(

[frostbite]

Scrappy programme - some good stuff in there but it could have been so much better with a decent production team.

[Keef]

What a wasted opportunity :(

[RookiePilot]

I loved it! Told me some stuff that I didn't know about the RAF, and some of the scenes (graduating IOT, captured Tornado pilot) was especially hard-hitting.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Given that this was supposed to be about the 'RAF at 90' the scope seemed rather narrow and failed to mentioned some of the most important aspects of the RAF. The first 70 minutes of 90 were devoted to the first 27 years of the RAF, juxtaposed with some current fast jet skygods. About 15 minutes were devoted to cold war fast jet skygods and about 5 minutes to Gulf War 2 fast jet skygods.

Not a whisper of the SH force who have, after all, been doing most of the shooting (and getting shot at) for the last 10 years, not a mention of Black Buck, not even a mention of Aden, Suez, Malaya, The Stan etc etc.

This program should probably have been called 'FJ heroes and their predecessors at 90'. I should have gone to the mess and got smashed instead.

And a quick edit before I'm misunderstood, this is not a dig at the FJ force but with many mates on the SH force earning DFCs like they're going out of fashion, I thought it might warrant at least a single mention in a program claiming to present the history of 90 years of the RAF.

[Bomberpuke]

Oft reading, infrequently posting and was touched by JP's comments - thus felt duty bound to put down the red wine and type........

Mate, I wouldn't of swapped my place for yours....you didn't fail and there but for the grace of god went I.....seeing the pictures of you from 91 brought back very strong memories and the elation of seeing you alive then, and still now, still brings back goose bumps...your pain was felt by all of us at Dhahran.......your unassuming commentary raised an average proggy above the norm.

[Chugalug2]

mustpost:

What was it about? Comments?


It was about 90 years of the RAF, or more particularly Strategic Aerial Bombing, for which it was formed. Known in the trade as "Frightfulness" or later "Armageddon" it has always been a particular preoccupation of the chattering classes from which the BBC draws its recruits. This was a complete hatchet job done, oh so obliquely, that you weren't quite sure if you'd got the point or not. Of course it wasn't all dark, the forces of light were there too, the "knights of the air", the "cavalry of the clouds", both past and present, with talk of pride at defending our skies from the Hun (what? are they? oh, sorry!). Which brings us to Luke Torpy. Why do I get the suspicion that he was personally involved in giving this the RAF seal of approval? All publicity is good publicity, especially when much of it is filmed at Coningsby. Strong the Force in that one is, think I!

[drivez]

Was a little confused by it all. Came across as trying to show off the glamour of the fighter pilots in previous years. But then every few minutes would come on with someone telling you how your shooting a man not a plane. Which is true, but why did they keep repeating it every few minutes. As other posters stated, I couldn't tell whether it was a hard-hitting insight into the morality of war, or a recruitment drive. With all the pictures of spitfires men running across grass, airshows etc.:confused:

[Mowgli]

Some fascinating library footage, but overall, it missed the "target" implied in the title IMHO.

As a record of some individuals' experiences, again, fascinating. I thought John did ok and it was interesting to hear his thoughts on the cold war's potential for mutual destruction. Should not the point have been made that this awful scenario was the deterrent to crossing the wire after a period of conventional air fighting? I don't blame John for this, who knows what was left on the cutting room floor?

It was great to see Geoffrey "boy" Wellum whose own experiences are brilliantly told in his book "First Light".

Overall, a missed opportunity.

[sparkie]

According to the producers of the programme my 37 years spent in ground communications counts for nothing!

90 minutes devoted mainly to extolling how wonderful fighter jockeys are and sod the rest of us. No real mention of ground crews, or the countless other trades without whom the pilot and aircraft would never get airborne.

90 Years of the RAF....more like The RAF consists of pilots and aeroplanes. Cack production that should be consigned to the shredder :mad:

[mustpost]

Oh I got the point all right, I make films, and teach documentary film technique. Hence my original call for comments and my subsequent remark about "huggy/fluffy" AKA revisionism/apologistas.
Thank you for putting it into a service perspective.:D Your analysis is entirely correct.

[crabbbo]

Disappointing. Having now watched it, despite a mention of the Berlin Air Lift i don't remember seeing any air transport or helicopters in the film. These are surely the mainstay of the modern RAF and very disappointing not to see them mentioned fully as they are what is keeping the RAF afloat (sic).

[Culio]

I thought it was pretty good, I wasn't expecting much after reading some of those comments, but I thought it was......pleasantly surprising. There were times when I thought they captured the moment very well.

A do have one request :) Could anyone name some of the pieces of music being played in the background? Predominantly, I would really like to know the name of the reoccurring piece featuring a very high pitched violin and strings accommpanying. I have definitely heard it before, the name has just left me :confused:

[NutLoose]

What a weak and shallow Production, It focused on a minority in the RAF and badly at that..

No disrespect intended, BUT why do these programmes seem to rotate around people who's only claim to fame seems to be they got shot down?

There is so much more to the RAF than a bunch of fighter pilots berating their own prowess like a bunch of prepubescent schoolboys with an urge to rub themselves up against something.... fine they do a job and a good one at that, but the RAF is more than that and always has been, they would be lost without the engineering, logistical, admin and catering divisions etc, these are the backbone of the RAF that work 24 hours a day 360 days of the year to enable the "few" to do what they do.... additionally there are more dangerous flying jobs in the RAF such as the support Helicopter fleet, (my hat's off to you guys) and these never got a look in, neither really did the likes of the Transport guys..such a lost opportunity to show the RAF at it's finest and severely stretched.....


I suppose that is one reason I have been watching the Combat Chef series is it doesn't allude itself to this myopic view of the Army that this programme presented of the RAF........

90 years crammed into nearly 90 minutes was never going to be a success, but this never even came close to it..........

[Chugalug2]

mustpost:

Oh I got the point all right

You may well say that (and so do I), but others it seems would beg to differ, suggesting that it was indeed about the RAF, just not the bit that they are interested in! This was classic "Hampstead Thinker" stuff people, brought to you by the pudding basin haircut/ open toe sandled brigade. I have an awful feeling that we may have to brace ourselves for even more of this Goebel-esque theatre of truth. A retrospective on Cannon Collins, an appreciation of Sir Stafford Cripps? Plenty of room there to shoehorn in yet more "thoughts" on the Bombing Campaign. The programme thoughtfully reminded us that there is no National Memorial to the 55,573 brave young (so young) men of Bomber Command who gave their lives in that long bloody fight for Victory. It did not mention that there is now an active campaign to at last correct that national disgrace. Could it be that is what motivated this production? We shall know soon enough I fear. At least the Old Lags (so old now) that survived are excused the obligation to fund this trash. My real contempt though is for the RAF higher command that went along with this. No interest in defending the honour and traditions of a proud service, refusing to reinstate the reputations of two junior officers improperly scapegoated by their seniors, they shouldn't be in charge of a whelk stall let alone the Royal Air Force.

Thank you for putting it into a service perspective

It's a civilian perspective now, mustpost, like you. Those with service perspectives would not wish to post such incendiary stuff. I'm sad that I feel compelled to.

[G-CPTN]

My opinion is that it lost it's way at several points, very curates egg.
I was neither nowt nor summat.
Had an anti-German slant too that was unnecessary IMO . . .
What type of aircraft would John Peters have been flying capable of delivering instant sunshine to the Eastern Bloc territories? I presume it would have been a 'bomber jet' rather than a 'fighter jet'? Did the Tonka have nuclear capability?
Oh! and my telly kept lapsing into black and white - must get it fixed!

[KeepItTidy]

Yeah waste of TV time , Trying to preach to a new generation of people the RAFs ideals and what its like to be fighter command pilot many years back. Nobody cares but a few pilots that share that time , for many people serving its another program/film that ensures pilots were the heroes that saved the day even though they would have done bugger all if it had not been from the support of a nation. The RAF were just the final adding touch that done the job and gained the glory. The air force gives us leaflets and **** to remind us dont loose the ethos and values, we live in the past and fail to move forward to what we really should be doing

[BEagle]

Overall pretty poor.

A lot of well-known library shots plus some bits out of 'Battle of Britain' (degraded to look 'period'), and recent Typhoon, Hawk and Cranwell clips. With some 'instant traditions' at Cranwell nowadays, it seems....

90 years in 90 minutes - that's a decade every 9 minutes. That simply wasn't delivered.

No real research (why not show relative sizes of personnel, aircraft and aerodromes every 10 years, for example?).

No wonder it was 'officially approved'......

[Beamish Boy]

The violin music used was The Lark Ascending by Ralph Vaughan Williams.

[Benjybh]

@Beamish Boy - cheers, I was going to ask the same question.

As for the programme, I was not impressed, with way too much time devoted to the second world war, then after that five minutes of a Valient, and then skipping onto JP (the best part IMHO) and the Tornado. The production team succesfully managed to blot out any combat between 1945 and 1991, let alone the rather more exotic places the SH and AT fleet have been over the past 50 years or so. Added to the mish-mash of archive film, modern scenes of the RAF and bloody Blackpool pier, it really was a production mess. And what was with the bloody speaking clock every 5 minutes!?
To end, did anyone else crack up in the introduction when the narrator was rabbiting on about how we are "no longer an island" and are suspect to air attack etc. and a seagull appeared with dramatic music?!!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Didn't show the Q boys playing Xbox either did it!

[mustpost]

a seagull appeared with dramatic music?!!
Good:D The semiotics weren't lost on you either..If you check as I have done, said bird was enhanced just in case you might have missed it..:rolleyes:

[Benjybh]

Indeed, the semiotics weren't lost on me, however I was merely stating that it was a tad ironic, you would at least expect an eagle or something with that musical underscore...:)

[Wycombe]

Overall, a bit of a poor mish-mash.

Peters spoke well and honestly.

The Bomber Command piece hinted at the what has sometimes been viewed as controversial approach of Harris, without actually mentioning it.

Good though was the mention of the huge Bomber Command casualties from WW2, and that there is no Memorial to them, other than the one in Holland.

There were many more "highlights" of RAF history, eg, the post Op Corporate air-bridge (would have brought AT in, who didn't figure at all), Black-Buck, Op Bushell (for the humanitarian side), I could go on....

And to not even mention current/past SH efforts, well....

I know it was only 90 mins, but there was too much "fluff" and not enough of the above content.

[The Adjutant]

I missed the first 20 min as I had read yesterday that it wasn't much good. What I did see confirmed the opinion although there was some good bits along the way.

I am a bit of a"spotter" and the programme fell into the common trap of showing the standard clip of a pilot in a Spitfire Mk5 firing his guns, cutting to the cannon of a Hurricane Mk 2C shooting then cutting back to a German camera gun showing a Spitfire Mk9 getting shot down. I always hope that somebody making a film about the RAF will get this right and use another clip or remix it to show a German aircraft going down but it is trotted out again and again.

By the way Beags, 90 years in 90 min gives a decade every 10 min according to my school boy maths. Perhaps things were different in your day, so happy to bow to your superior knowledge.

[minigundiplomat]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the programme, JP needs to leave the guilt behind and move on. He has nothing to feel guilty about...sh1t happens.

Let it go mate.

[Rather be Gardening]

What a disappointment. Although I enjoyed the historic footage, the sequence was rambling, massively skewed towards WWII, precious little (or no) mention of the subsequent conflicts/peacekeeping/humanitarian roles. You'd never know we had a transport & RW ac history too. Nothing to speak of about any of the other specialisations, nothing about the RAF in its joint role with the other services, nothing about latest technology. If the series had an RAF advisor, they must have keep their mouth firmly shut.

[ScouseFlyer]

What a terrible waste of a prime time 11/2 hour slot.What could have been and should have been a celebration of the full 90 years turned into a shallow, predictable coffee table piece.Great shame.

SF

[A and C]

My wife a PPL holder and involved professionaly on the edges of the entertainment industry commented that it was cheap TV using poor quality archive stock, lacking in direction and a very poor program for what should have been a very exciting subject.

She as a person interested in aviation got nothing usefull from the program so it was unlikely to hold the interest of the general public for very long.

Myself I see it as part of the BBC (prefferd workplace of the slightly left wing chattering classes) inability to be proud to be British in case they offend someone. The program was a very shabby way to treat a British institution that in 1940 saved the country from invasion by one of the most evil regimes in history.

[Phil_R]

I've been trying for two years to get an RAF-oriented TV drama series off the ground (pun entirely intended), and I hope I've done enough homework that it wouldn't get this sort of reaction on here.

The point is, though, I'm still trying, rather than doing, which I think elucidates the problem quite well. Broadcasters chase audience figures; it's not a whole hell of a lot to do with quality. Quality doesn't sell. Careful research doesn't sell.

But also: relax, folks. Coverage of any sort is almost always good. The armed forces in this country are practically invisible to the rest of the population. The reaction to journalists on this forum, the reaction to this TV show (which seems to have been tedious rather than malicious), even the reaction to that poor unfortunate C-130 pilot's interview, which was entirely positive and the sort of thing we'd hope to see more of, is for want of a better word, much too uptight.

Yes it'd be nice to see more of the cooks and bottle washers (er, Combat Chefs, anyone?) and the forces in general in both documentary and drama, but in the meantime, let's at least try and be thankful for small mercies, eh?

P

[Chugalug2]

Phil_R:

Coverage of any sort is almost always good.

I imagine that is what the top echelons were assured when they backed this production. I agree with those who say it was poorly made which thus obscured its theme. That theme I believe was to highlight the point that the RAF's raison d'etre has always been aerial strategic bombing and all that entails from pre war Kurdish villages, via the laying waste of wartime Germany to the MAD scenarios planned in the Cold War. Such destruction both actual and potential has been deemed unacceptable and condemned both during and since WW2, especially by the post war Labour Government and the left of centre BBC. Wars are not won by armchair theorists, nor for that matter by evacuations or heroic defence of seas and skies. They are won by taking the war to the enemy and destroying his capacity to wage it. Time there was a robust defence of that dangerous and necessary campaign and of the men who went out night after night to conduct it, often never to return. The agenda of those who are opposed to such recognition and proper Remembrance is to be found in such pieces as this. The Royal Air Force at least should be prepared to stand up and be counted in defending its heritage or it will fall by default to such perspective as this biased rendering.

[Davetron]

Watched it last night on the iplayer, what a waste of time. Nothing to do with rotary or multis force after WW2. Little to no narrative to follow, and why did it bang on about nuclear armageddon when the RAF won't launch nukes, it's the navy that will. With the RAf having an apparent 'recruiting crisis' at the moment and advertising everywhere why would they allow this show to be made. If I was younger and watched it, it would put me off for life!

[Amos Keeto]

Sorry to say chaps I did not feel the programme very good at all and of course I had to chuckle when John Peters said a Typhoon would be deployed from Coningsby to shoot down any airliner that tried a 9/11 attack on London! It couldn't posibly get to a hijacked airliner taking off from Heathrow ( even if based at say Farnborough ) & shoot it down prior to hitting the centre of London. Even if it could the loss of life on the ground would be too great so it is not a scenario our government would entertain.It has been a point of discussion within BA for some time !!! The conclusion is do now't and hope for the best !!! These people seem to think the public are gullible or stupid! :=

[Brewster Buffalo]

I thought it was pretty good, I wasn't expecting much after reading some of those comments, but I thought it was......pleasantly surprising. There were times when I thought they captured the moment very well. I enjoyed it as well though that seems to be a minority view on here.

[J.A.F.O.]

Twas pants.

[CrazyMonkey]

Seems to be some pretty angry people on pprune who seem to have far better ideas. Well I thought the documentary was alright, not great, but why don't some of you guys get together and make an approach to a production company with a better idea? Too many armchair whingers out there.

[thunderbird7]

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs) was their Finest Hour.

[J.A.F.O.]

CrazyMonkey

Because I don't pretend that I can make TV programmes, I stick to what I'm reasonably good at, shame they didn't.

[Dop]

I kept hearing this whirring noise in the background.
I think it was Raymond Baxter turning in his grave.

Seriously I think this could have been occasion for a short series, a proper documentary of RAF history.

Instead, while there were a few good bits, I felt it was lightweight fluff. The BBC used to do better than this.

[Chugalug2]

thunderbird7:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs)THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs) was their Finest Hour.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs)
It may well have been, but it didn't lead to Victory, it prevented Defeat at a very crucial time. The real blood, toil, tears and sweat took much longer and at much much greater cost.

CrazyMonkey:
make an approach to a production company with a better idea

Like extolling Bomber Harris and the Bombing Campaign? Try selling that idea to the BBC! You might as well go the whole hog and suggest they commission a documentary on us having won the Cold War, by showing our clear preparedness to fight it hot. No chance. As for the production, I am quite content that it was poor, given its plain intent.

[SRENNAPS]

I really can’t believe some of the comments that I have read here tonight.

Some of you really are bitter and twisted people with a major chip on their shoulders.

I find some of your comments disgusting and unnecessary. Quite frankly they are insults to all that have died over the 90 years.

Shame on many of you.........you have hit a new low on PPRuNe with this thread.

[Chugalug2]

SRENNAPS, could you explain the basis of your outrage? As far as I can see the discussion has been about a television programme. What has been said that leads you to say:
I find some of your comments disgusting and unnecessary. Quite frankly they are insults to all that have died over the 90 years.

[SRENNAPS]

I don’t need to, the thread speaks for itself.

As far as I can see the discussion has been about a television programme.

A lot of people here had already decided to criticise the program, even before they had watched it. It’s what they do.

I find that very insulting.

And if you wish to carry on this argument then I suggest you PM me or meet me face to face. Here is not the place.

[tubby linton]

Was JP the person to front the post war history of the RAF?I know some of the Falklands veterans ,including the Victor tanker leader, who would have made a much better subject about how the RAF do things well at very short notice.

[Benjybh]

I know some of the Falklands veterans ,including the Victor tanker leader

Bob Tuxford? Or is my history all wrong and I must go and re-read 'Vulcan 607'?

[tubby linton]

Bob and Martin Withers would have been much more interesting to listen to.Did JP ever fly after he left the RAF?

[Doobs]

Absolute rubbish.
Once again, the RAF only consists of pilots!!
If that represented the RAF over 90 years then god help us. What happened to todays ops and the continuous ops between now and WWII.
I bet all the ground trades are feeling down hearted and un loved again but all the officer cadets who got their face on TV will be well chuffed.
Why do the BBC bother making progs like this? What a about a prog that doesnt involve aircrew for a change!

[exscribbler]

Well, I missed it. Thank you, Lord.

[lancs]

Missed it? Not yet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g2545/RAF_at_90/).

[brakedwell]

Very disappointing with too much wasted time, which is typical of the BBC. Perhaps three half hour episodes covering different aspects of the RAF would have been better.

[Chris Griffin]

I Sky +'d the programme and courtesy of the fast forward button managed to watch it in 25 minutes. It was a weak production which seemed to have no real direction at all. It smacked of a half-ar*ed effort. What a missed opportunity.

Srennaps - contrary to your effort to stifle the debate, could I suggest that those of us critical of the programme do not have "chips" and are in no way disrespectful to fellow members past and present. The poor effort produced by the BBC hardly scratched the surface of our history; and it is that aspect which generates the criticism.

Doobs - agree that mention should have been made of all other serving personnel, however, a programme on the 90 years of the RAF without aircrew in it would be bizarre to Joe Public.

In summary: a very poor effort

[Irish Tempest]

2 images the RAF is trying to shed in the current recruiting environment:

1. It is a gentlemans club full of toffs and public schoolboys.
2. It consists solely of pilots.

IMHO the documentary failed to dispell both.

Whoever your rep is at DP(RAF) should take himself off and have a good chat with himself.

Oh and the line about 'creating traditons' made me chuckle...

IT

[neilf92]

SRENNAPS


"I really can’t believe some of the comments that I have read here tonight.

Some of you really are bitter and twisted people with a major chip on their shoulders.

I find some of your comments disgusting and unnecessary. Quite frankly they are insults to all that have died over the 90 years.

Shame on many of you.........you have hit a new low on PPRuNe with this thread. "



As someone who has admired , followed , portrayed and served in the Royal Air Force I take great exception to your remarks.
The greatest insult comes from the producers of this awful programme.
If you care to wake up - the comments come from those of us who care deeply about The Royal Air Force and do not need reminding of the many who have lost their lives in service - in war and peace.
I suggest you retract your unjustified comment.

[SRENNAPS]

I have read this thread many times now and I am sorry, but my comments stand. Maybe I am wrong and I apologise to anybody that has taken offence.

I do believe that whatever programme was made, it was always going to be highly criticised on this web site, only because it was made by the BBC.

If it’s worth anything, I have been to my local pub for lunch today where all the locals know that I served in the RAF for a long time. Those that saw the programme (and there were quite a few) enjoyed it both as informative and a tribute to the RAF. I am sure that if they read some of the posts on this forum they would be less impressed.

You seem to forget that the programme was aimed at people who have never served in the RAF. Ninety years of history is not easy to capture in ninety minutes. Rightly or wrongly the general public’s perception of the Royal Air Force remains to be “Fighter Pilots” and Lancaster Bombers in World War Two. They also remember very well the images of JP, but I’m afraid that’s about it.

When you read some of the posts in this thread and then compare them with many other threads on this website you notice a reoccurring theme; that is one of complaint and criticism of just about anything associated with the RAF. Sorry but it is my opinion that the majority of complaints, in sometimes quite a vulgar fashion, is just not called for.

[Crashed&Burned]

The RAF at 90....? Well, when you get to 90 you tend to lose your train of thought easily and that would sum up this programme. Fragmented, going off at tangents and without a consistent theme. Pity, an opportunity squandered.

C&B :bored:

[Wwyvern]

It was a very shallow programme.

[Tourist]

I am a little surprised that some on here find it unreasonable to for a programme about the history of the RAF to dwell mostly on WW2.
Banter aside, it was your finest hour and no disrespect to other campaigns but they really don't compare in sheer scale or importance in any way.

The RN has had a few good moments in history, (Taranto, St Nazier etc) but if they made a 90 minute programme about us I strongly suspect that the majority of it would dwell even further away in antiquity at Trafalgar. It does not mean nothing else has been worthy of note.

I also think that it is a bit silly to whinge about the aircrew getting all the attention. In all history there has never been a small child who, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, answered "mover" , "ATC" , "MT driver" etc. If you want a undeservedly glamourous image and tv adulation then become aircrew instead of complaining about lack of recognition in your role.

[NutLoose]

Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that in the opening scenes we heard an aircraft flying over and the school children all looked upwards....... what was it a Spitfire?, perhaps a Hurricane?...... Nope, a good old Cessna 152 hove into view... Perhaps they lost the plot from then on?

[Green Flash]

An aimless, rambling unconnected series of sounds and pictures. An example of how to take a good idea, a great set of resources and a potentially strong message and fcuk it up. But enough of DII(F).

I still havn't a clue what it was trying to say. The only emotion I felt was guilt - God Bless the Cloggies:ok:, at least they appreciate what was done to free them.

[30AB]

Tourist,
I think there may have been quite a few young chaps and chapesses whose ambition, was a career in military aviation maintenance and other worthy trades.

[LowNSlow]

Watched it with my Dad (ex-RAF 1939-1946, Halifaxes). Both of us were seriously underwhelmed. JP was good and I agree that he has no reason to feel that he didn't do his job.

With only 90 minutes to encapsulate 90 years of history why was so much time wasted on shots of people staring wisfully into the distance? The piece on Cranwell was good but the general lack of focus was appalling.

Glad they showed that the only memorial to Bomber Command is in Holland and the enthusiam of the Dutch in commemorating the scarifices made by the aircrew. As Dad pointed out, they were occupied and knew first hand what life was like under the Nazi regime and were prepared to suffer whatever it took to get the Germans out of Holland.

[AJatRED]

This programme gave the impression of a half-hearted attempt by media students at something beyond their capabilities or imagination. The result was a dismal effort, produced by amateurs with a camera technique best described as clueless; so many shots lacked context that they seemed divorced from the subject altogether. Quite what we were supposed to make of the time dedicated to viewing runway lights at dusk, or the dark profile of a man viewing said runway lights at dusk, is anyone’s guess. Nor was I much interested in watching Sleaford Tech apprentices marching on a piece of red carpet. As for the choice of background music – something less appropriate to accompany scenes of mass destruction than the Lark ascending would be almost impossible to find. The random insertions of the speaking clock were novel, though. Meaningless, but novel.

Then there was the storyline - hopelessly unbalanced and giving no indication of the breadth and scope of RAF operations and personnel, past or present. And while it probably seemed like a good idea at the time to use John Peters, his poor delivery detracted from the story. If someone doesn’t know what to say, or can’t express themselves properly, what's the point? There are plenty that can.

For a one and a half hour prime-time piece from the BBC, this programme lacked just about everything; direction, content, balance and perspective. It was a wasted opportunity that in the hands of a team with some nous and imagination, could have been full of interest and insight. Instead, we got a very dull presentation of only part of the story.

[Chugalug2]

AJatRED

Instead, we got a very dull presentation of only part of the story.

Agreed, but that part is the only part of the RAF's 90 years that interests the BBC. By comparing the gallant heroism of the Battle of Britain (and the modern counterparts at Coningsby) with the founding purpose of the RAF, Aerial Strategic Bombing, the "frightfulness" of the latter is supposedly exposed. That the incompetence of the production frustrated that exposure should not obscure the intent. Those who have served or are serving in the RAF in whatever role should be under no illusions. The British Broadcasting Corporation has a consistent policy of deploring the RAF Bombing Offensive of WW2. They may point out that no National Memorial to the 55,573 Aircrew of Bomber Command who died in the Bombing Campaign exists, but the implication of this and other coverage is that perhaps that is appropriate. I do not believe that is the attitude of the population as a whole. It is yet another example of how the British Broadcasting Corporation no longer reflects the attitude of the British.
Edited to add, Great first post, welcome to the Tower of Babel! :D

[North Front]

:( No Analysis

Disappointingly narrow coverage.... RAF at 90? What about current ops, hels, transport, UAVs... did we go into mothballs in 1945 until 1990 (apart from Grapple)? What about the Berlin Airlift? Malaya? Aden?

Very very poor... but to be expected from the current management

[airsound]

I’ve hesitated to dip my toe into this maelstrom, but I feel I have to. One of my problems has been that I have a foot in both camps - I was proud to be ‘in’ for 20 years, and I’m now a broadcaster, journo and commentator, specialising in aviation. I appear on the Beeb - and on anybody else’s screens and microphones who cares to pay - and that’s part of how I earn my living.

First of all, a matter of fact. Although the programme was on the Beeb, it was made by an independent production company called Prospect-UK. I understand that the RAF was happy for them to get the job because they could offer some of the same production people, including the Exec Producer, who made the acclaimed ‘Above Enemy Lines’.

I should also say that I was on the shortlist to be the narrator for ‘RAF at 90’. But, having not got the job, I approached the show fully prepared to dislike it. Childish, I know. My excuse is that I was deeply disappointed.

I have to say though, that, against my expectations, I thought it was rather good. As a 90-minute feature film (90 mins, 90 years, etc), it came over as clever, artistic and rather well-themed. I thought the several reprises of The Lark Ascending were lovely. Among other things, it also included some interesting research on the effects of second world war bombing that I certainly hadn’t heard before. And of course there was the lovely Geoffrey Wellum. One of the themes that I detected was a reflection of the love of all things to do with flying and aviation which, presumably, most Ppruners have. I guess you could argue that this was not the occasion to reflect that.

But, in fact, the programme seems to have gone down quite well amongst the wider BBC audience. As far as I can make out, the iPlayer version has stayed in the ‘most watched’ list for an unexpectedly long time for a BBC2 non-fiction 90-minuter.

However, I’m not disagreeing with all the knockers in the thread. First, the programme wasn’t a structured history of the RAF at 90, and, clearly, it missed out lots of important and significant stuff. (I speak as an ex-truckie) And obviously it wasn’t the programme the RAF thought it was going to get.

That said, I’m not sure that you could sell that ‘perfect’ RAF programme to any major broadcaster. Whether the broadcasters are right or wrong, I don’t think they would take 90 minutes of plain, vanilla history. Maybe the idea of a series of shorter programmes would work better. But I have to say that my experience of trying to interest broadcasters in the kind of material that I think most people on here want is pretty dismal - and I’ve been trying for quite a long time. Even people like the History Channel are notoriously hard to sell to.

So maybe we should be grateful for getting the coverage that we did get. It’s not perfect, but, in the old saw, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. And in this case, the publicity wasn’t even bad - just not as good as some of us might have hoped. Oh, and a disappointment for a major birthday.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

Thank you for your informative post, airsound, welcome as always. I intend to watch this prog yet again via BBCi, in the light of your comments. As regards the points you make, is it not likely that Prospect-UK made this programme to appeal to their idea of what the BBC wants? In the light of "Dresden", "Bomber Harris" and similar precedents it takes little thought to achieve such appeal. Is it not more likely that better balance might result from in house productions for no other reason than to at least attempt the notion of aiming for non-bias? When you say that:

it came over as clever, artistic and rather well-themed.

my impression was that it was too clever by half, but that is not important. As to artistic you are better qualified to make that judgement and I defer to your better understanding in these matters. The interesting comment is that it was well themed. I have already mentioned that I found dual contrasting themes, of light (Hendon, Battle of Britain, Typhoons at Coningsby, and the pilots of such from past and present). Intertwined were the forces of darkness (Hull, Trenchard and the raison d'etre of the RAF founding, bombing Kurdish villages, ominous lurking Zeppelin over the 1935 Cup Final, WW2 and the Bombing Offensive with striking colour footage and the ever belligerent and defiant voice of Harris both during and after the event, Grapple and the H bomb, our Cold War preparedness to use it as testified to by John Peters, with other "Bombers" from the past trying to explain their historic roles). Now that seems to me to be a very powerful and effective theme, heavily biaised against Strategic Bombing, the very reason of the RAF formation 90 years ago, or am I in error? You were honest enough to fess up to your own connection with the Beeb. My interest is with the provision of a National Memorial to Bomber Command's 55,573 Aircrew that died in WW2. I feel that it is a national disgrace that well over 60 years after the event, the survivors are still waiting for that. As a major opinion former over that period it seems to me to have consistently portrayed that campaign not as a vital ingredient of final victory, but as needless death and destruction as in this programme, or am I again in error? I know that this thread is concerned only with the programme, which will result in as many opinions as there are posts, but the elephant in the room is the BBC and the agenda it brings with it when portraying the RAF, particularly in WW2. Isn't it time we acknowledged the presence of this pachyderm?

[Phil_R]

There is an organisation in the UK which was created and granted crown support in the early part of the twentieth century, having been assembled from the assets of precursor organisations which did similar work. Since the early 90s, changes in the field in which it operates have caused it to undergo massive downsizing, to the dismay of many of its longest-serving and retired personnel. It is funded by direct taxation. It is one of very few UK organisations which regularly sends a very small proportion of its people in harm's way, most of whom do it because they have some sort of romantic feelings towards the job, but also because they feel like it's worth doing and needs to be done by somebody.

I'm talking about the BBC, of course (who did you think I was talking about?) and yes they do have some funny ideas about some things. A lot of it is due to their relative venerability, which has given them lots of strange, archaic beliefs and traditions, many of which make very little practical sense (yes, I'm still talking about the BBC), leading to some rather strange agendas at play.

Disclaimer: I hardly ever work for them, largely due to above.

[Chugalug2]

You capture the essence of the Beeb so well, PhilR, as only a professional can. So where is the justification, might I, ask of an organisation

funded by direct taxation

that has

archaic beliefs and traditions.....leading to some rather strange agendas at play

I have just watched the Sun Military Awards "Millies" on Sky. Channel 4 News is invariably the broadcaster leading with the airworthiness scandal and other military stories. The Beeb is no longer the sole Public Service broadcaster, yet it continues its privileged existence as though it is. Should it not sink or swim, as they must, and earn its own keep too in order to push out its agenda as instanced by the thread subject?(got that bit in as I sense Pop's finger edging even now towards the thread drift button!).

[Phil_R]

You'll get no argument from me there - I'm no great fan of Auntie; I just thought there were some interesting parallels.

Consider. While the commercial broadcasters have an obvious need to get eyeballs staring at advertising, the BBC has no such requirement. Strangely, though, it seems to be behaving as if it does - as if lowest common denominator popularity is the correct measure of success - so it's not really very surprising that what the BBC are doing doesn't seem wildly differentiated from commercial output. It isn't. Yes, this is a very bad thing and defeats the object of PSB.

It isn't very easy to solve, unfortunately, because if you completely ignored popularity you'd end up with people bitching that this mandatory payment was being misused for the enjoyment of a minority. It's currently the subject of debate within the industry. I suspect you can read all about it on OFCOM's site, or find a BECTU member and look at the last issue of the union rag.

[BEagle]

The BBC programme was very shallow.

Last night's Sky One production of Tuesday's 'Millies' was very well produced - except for the cut to adverts as the minute's silence began.

That was inexcusable and ruined an otherwise excellent programme.

[Wessexman]

Some interesting and thought evoking historical footage, especially towards those who gave their lives-very humbling.

However, I am afraid that to me it seemed to reflect the current 'thinking' and attitude of the senior management within the RAF-clinging on to the history and having no clue what is happening now nor what the future plan is!

[airsound]

Thanks for kind words Chugs. Before answering some of your points, I took your suggestion and made time to watch the programme again.
is it not likely that Prospect-UK made this programme to appeal to their idea of what the BBC wants?
Yes I’m sure they did - but it’s in the nature of documentaries that include interviews that the end result doesn’t always turn out exactly like the original ‘treatment’ might have suggested. Sometimes the programme takes its own, unexpected, path.

I can’t disagree with what you say about the
contrasting themes, of light (Hendon, Battle of Britain, Typhoons at Coningsby, and the pilots of such from past and present). ..... forces of darkness (Hull, Trenchard and the raison d'etre of the RAF founding, bombing Kurdish villages, ominous lurking Zeppelin over the 1935 Cup Final, WW2 and the Bombing Offensive with striking colour footage and the ever belligerent and defiant voice of Harris both during and after the event, Grapple and the H bomb, our Cold War preparedness to use it as testified to by John Peters, with other "Bombers" from the past trying to explain their historic roles).
except to say that I see all of that as more or less factual, and not necessarily biassed against strategic bombing. What it does is to present the arguments to us, the audience. Any bias is in the eye of the audience, isn’t it? For example, the narration pointed out that Bomber Command didn’t get a mention in Churchill’s end of war speech. That’s fact. We can make of it what we will.

I don’t think I can take any credit for 'fessing up to my Beeb connections! They’re surely pretty obvious - but that doesn’t mean I support everything the Beeb does. I work for all sorts of broadcasters, not just Auntie. And incidentally, when I agreed to be considered for narrating the programme, (with the support of the RAF) I didn’t know what was in it in any detail. I did, though, harbour the vain hope that I might be able to influence some of the content

But I totally agree with your condemnation of the lack of a Bomber Command Memorial - I’m on record as doing so, and, apart from anything else, every time I commentate on a Lancaster display (several times a year) I discuss the Bomber Command losses and much else besides - and I often quote that grand old man of aviation, the late Sir George Edwards, who described the Lancaster as
“An aircraft designed by engineers and built by craftsmen and women for heroes to fly”
But as I said before, I don’t think that 'RAF at 90' was a bad programme - just not the right one.

On a slightly different note - I enjoyed your teasing comparison of Auntie and HM’s Flying Club, Phil. It reminded me of when I left at my 38 point, and was thinking of joining Auntie Beeb on the staff. I thought, you couldn’t get two more different organisations. How wrong I was - similarities included being roughly the same age, and the same size, and they had one particular thing in common. It often seemed like there were more people saying No than people trying to do things. I didn’t join Auntie’s staff. And nothing much seems to have changed.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

airsound:

Any bias is in the eye of the audience, isn’t it?

Well you know your business better than I, airsound, but I would feel that what you say and what you don't say can produce very effective bias for implanting into said audience's eyes and ears. The implication in this film was that the destruction done to German cities was unnecessary. If that is so then it was clearly a monstrous act, thoroughly justifying Harris not being ennobled (alone among the senior service commanders), his Command not being awarded the specific Bombing Campaign Medal that he called for, Churchill's infamous post Dresden memo (the greatest betrayal of all) and, as you remind us, omission from his end of war speech, and of course no National Bomber Command Memorial to date. If however, as I believe, it was the only way to take the war to the enemy (until our ground forces entered his frontiers), to frustrate his plans to triple or even quadruple war production, thus ensuring final victory then those acts were spiteful and mean spirited, especially given the length and cost of that bloody campaign. As I understand it, it was reports back from the advancing army that finally brought home the extent and scope of destruction caused by bombing that had befallen German towns and cities that started a wave of revulsion especially amongst those who had long resented the precious resources ploughed into the Bombing Campaign rather than theirs, as well as the usual suspects (Cannon Collins, Stafford Cripps etc). I'm afraid that moral outrage amongst the British has always had more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, and this was no exception. I don't think that the Beeb at the time reflected this view, though I stand to be corrected, but over the years it has adapted to this conventional wisdom, and thus reinforced it. That is what they have done with this programme and 60+ years after the event that just isn't good enough. Either this campaign was not only justified but essential or it was criminal. Hinting at one or the other with speaking clocks, having elderly gentlemen espousing about giving Kurds a "good hiding", showing Zeppelins interrupting FA Cup Finals, running secretly filmed footage of the aftermath of German city air raids is just being ambivalent. Given that the post war British Government was anything but ambivalent and ostracized both Harris and his Command, so setting the national attitude ever after, isn't it pure hypocrisy to produce a piece that says nothing but implies the same old conventional wisdom?

[spamcanner]

A very disappointing programme for all of the above reasons.
Why keep showing the fair ground rides for gawd's sake! Too
arty farty for my liking! Anyway on to the reason for my post.

The one part I did enjoy, apart from the Grapple footage, was
the interview with John Peters. That image of him on tv during
the first Gulf War is still fresh in my mind even now.
The question they obviously didn't ask him, unless it ended up
on that cutting room floor with all the other good bits, was
that having left Bruggen or Laarbruch to take out a silo across
the border with a nuke, for example, and with the prospect of
mutual destruction of air bases, did each crew have a plan of
where they'd fly to having delivered their payload? Would it have
been a dirty dive south until the fuel ran out and Martin Baker
came into play? This is assuming that they survived that long
of course. Or was it seen as a suicide mission, end of story???
Did they in fact have enough fuel to reach airfields outside of the
ensuing maelstrom?
Maybe it was never contemplated as a serious possibility by the
aircrews because as JP said, it seemed such a ridiculous scenario
that neither side would dare be the one to unleash that first
weapon. Who knows? At least we're still here anyway ;)

[Green Flash]

Would it have been a dirty dive south until the fuel ran out and Martin Baker came into play?

I wonder if a dirty dive North might have paid better dividends? Over the Baltic at warp factor snot and pull the handles in the Stockholm FIR? (assuming a Viggen didn't get you first!) Or was Sweden going to get as hot as the rest of us? Anyway, JP's was one of the better bits. In fact, it would have been interesting to compare JP's prospective mission with that of his WarPact opposite number? There must have been a Flogger driver with the Clutch bases as his target? (Ditto a Challenger commander and T-82 boss, etc etc; it's coming up to 20 years since the Wall came down?!)

[airsound]

Chugs, I find it hard to disagree with you in many respects.
Harris not being ennobled (alone among the senior service commanders), his Command not being awarded the specific Bombing Campaign Medal that he called for, Churchill's infamous post Dresden memo (the greatest betrayal of all) and omission from his end of war speech, and of course no National Bomber Command Memorial to date
All of those things rankle with me too. Where I diverge from your argument is when you say
The implication in this film was that the destruction done to German cities was unnecessary.
I believe the film reflected the extremely difficult nature of the judgement that had, and has, to be made. I don’t believe that the judgement is as simple as
Either this campaign was not only justified but essential or it was criminal.
because I don’t believe we shall ever know for sure whether the campaign was justified or essential. At the time there were plenty of arguments in favour of it - but it seems to me that, even well after the event, it is impossible to quantify the ‘what-ifs’ and decide whether the end could have been achieved by some, less-damaging means. Which means, in my view, that the question of criminality remains, at most, moot, and probably unsupportable.

I have to say that I don’t believe that this programme advanced that argument any further. And I also don’t see the film as part of a BBC conspiracy to take such a view forward whenever an opportunity arises, whether in its own programmes or in ‘outsourced’ programmes.

A further couple of things that I didn’t like about the programme have come to mind. I’m with spamcanner in his mystification about the reasons for the repeated fairground rides - and I also have to confess I didn’t understand the significance of the vintage phone timechecks.

airsound

[thegypsy]

Let's face it Churchill was an absolute disaster in his political life except during WW11. The Gold Standard, Gallipolli, changing parties, his idea that we could keep an Empire after WW11. As for his lack of support for Bomber Command after the war that was the final insult.

[Chugalug2]

airsound:

I don’t believe we shall ever know for sure whether the campaign was justified or essential.

Well I think we should know for sure by now, and it is plain moral cowardice if we can't make that judgement as a nation. Of course there were more pressing matters of Real Politik at the time. Those whose cities we had laid waste were, in the main, now part of the western alliance to become later NATO. Those in support of whom we had conducted this "second front" were now changing from friend to potential enemy, in turn to become the Warsaw Pact. However, I am clear in my mind that not only would the WW2 Soviet death toll, some 25 million, have become greater still, but potentially it would have risen to hundreds of millions if the war production, unhindered by bombing, had meant a Nazi victory instead on the Eastern Front and racial cleansing, as planned, of the defeated Soviet population to put the Holocaust in the shade. D-day would never have succeeded, given the million men, and thousands of 88mm's and aircraft of the Luftwaffe released to defence of the Atlantic Wall. I see no reason why the Third Reich would not still be enslaving subject peoples from Brest to the Urals and beyond. Certainly this country would have had to sue for peace long since, and be ruled by our version of Vichy, if we were lucky! All that balanced against maybe as many as half a million enemy civilian deaths due to bombing? War is evil, this campaign was evil, but it helped defeat a far greater evil and without its help that greater evil would have prevailed. It was the right call then and it still is in my book. Of course I may be wrong, and the contrary argument right, but I would contend that we know enough now to have that debate and decide once and for all if we are to condemn these young men or condone them. They had the guts then to face up to this dilemma, for they were all volunteers, it speaks volumes about us that it would seem we don't. The ambiguity of this film highlights that moral vacuum.

[goofer]

It's to be expected that a programme with this title would disappoint at least as many as it pleased. Judging by this thread, it plainly touched nerves all round. So it should. Beyond the closed circle of crab-anoraks it has received justifiable plaudits as an attempt to capture the complex emotions aroused by death-from-the-sky.

This was never intended to be the last word on the RAF. But it should surely be seen as an honest contribution to the media history of the service. Moreover, I'll bet it's done more not less to raise the profile of Bomber Command and its justifiable claim to national recognition. The Producer (known to me) applied a commendably objective perspective and the result - to my very pro-military eye - enhanced rather than diminished the RAF's claim on intelligent people's support.

And, for better or worse, intelligent non-military licence-payers are the ones we have to reach. This progaramme helped the process and should be welcomed accordingly. We need more of this kind of thought-provoking TV coverage, not less.

[airsound]

Chugs, I guess I’m not expressing myself clearly. There is absolutely no way I would “condemn these young men” of Bomber Command. I would never presume to do so. To the contrary, I remain lost in admiration for their courage and steadfastness, and I can’t begin to imagine how they managed to go out night after night to do the (literally) awesome task that they had been given. No, any ambiguity about the rightness of the method rests firmly well above the pay grade of the aircrews.

And I have no dispute with you about the risks and possible outcomes of a continuing Third Reich. My questioning related solely to the efficacy of area bombing of largely civilian targets.

But I’m sure you noted that even this film, with its “very effective bias” (your words), let us hear Harris’ words about how the killing of apparently uninvolved civilians contributed to the destruction of the war machine.

I said in my first post on the subject (#80) “I thought it (the programme) was rather good”. I still think that, and I agree with Goofer when he/she says
We need more of this kind of thought-provoking TV coverage, not less.
Having said that, though, I believe the title ‘RAF at 90’ led to expectations that were clearly unfulfilled.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

airsound, it was not you but I that did not express clearly. My comments were of "we" as a nation and not directed to any individual, least of all you. As regards targets for Main Force, for all of his bellicose rhetoric Harris was basically a pragmatic man. By targeting cities he could be reasonably, though not wholly, confident that his crews could find them and hit them. Anything smaller and more obscure was a tall order for inexperienced crews (as the bulk always were), at night, in hostile skies, with uncertain cloud cover, and navigational technology both rudimentary and later jammable. To be effective this weapon had to be used continually and in strength. It was in effect a damned big club. Those who propose the equivalent of rapier like precision are misguided. It might be possible with a few elite units (viz 617) but no more. Even by day the USAAF did little better, for all the talk of "pickle barrels", with bomb creep amongst other factors increasing the error. All the industry within or served by a bombed city would be affected, together with transportation, utilities, communications, and of course the inhabitants. In other words disruption on a huge scale night after night, city after city. No matter how clever was Speer, how brutal Himmler, that affected war production and that meant less of everything in Russia, in particular tanks of course. The cities were the targets BC could get to and hit, oil refineries, ball bearing factories, synthetic fuel plants etc etc were all very well, but they were both dispersed and remote deliberately. Harris did what he could with what he had and for all the sneering summaries that production hardly faltered, the important thing is that it scarcely rose. That in spite of 24 hour working, total mobilisation and the cruel use of slave labour all introduced in vain attempts to match allied production. The dire shortages suffered by the Wehrmacht in Russia, the almost total absence of the Luftwaffe in the west, all bear witness to the overall success of the Strategic Bombing campaign against Germany. If we don't like what we have to do to win wars, the answer is to avoid fighting them, for the worst outcome of all results from not being prepared to do what is required to win; you lose!
I seem to have managed to avoid mention of the programme itself entirely, so I judge myself guilty of thread creep and perhaps have said all that I can say. I must acknowledge though that the programme has at least triggered a debate and that must be a point in its favour!:ok:

[bombedup6]

Concur with Airsound's first post on this 80 per cent, having Sky-plussed the programme and watched it last night. Having written three aviation history books I found the long, 90-year theme a key ingredient ie 'what's the RAF all FOR". Thus the opening and closing fairground shots - the theme of flight as exhilarating and fun - combined with its darker purpose of death and destruction. The vintage speaking clock was also a brilliant touch, 'artsy fartsy' as some have said, but a 90-year reminder that the sheer speed and timeliness of airpower is what makes the RAF so singularly different from the other traditional services. I wouldn't have thought of that. As one who lived at Gutersloh when the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 I became seriously aware that we were only four minutes Soviet flying time from the East German border - coincidentally, the same time it took for an unstoppable ballistic nuke missile to reach the UK from Belorussia.

Criticisms: 1/ Too much time spent on Harris and WWII Bomber Command. A much better use of that time, in my view, would have been to connect the dots of bombing civilians - whether deliberately or not - over the entire 90 years of the RAF, starting with the V/1500 bombing of King Amanullah's palace in Kabul in 1919 (effective), through the Mau Mau bombings in 1953 (ineffective), to the present, where even the most careful, precision-guided attack does -very rarely - kill innocent civilians (and helps recruit more enemy). A consistent theme of civilians is the 'unfairness' of aerial bombing because it is seen as one of the most remote forms of warfare, in which the killers can return to their safe homes after doing their 'foul' deeds, an attitude particularly generated after Guernica, 1936 (OK they were Nazis). And the programme didn't even mention 39 Sqn bombing Afghanistan from the ground 8,000 miles away in Nevada. Armies and navies, however, are seen as sharing the same battlegrounds and do not seem to generate the same public approbrium - though I would not like to say that to the people of Warsaw 1944, or Sarajevo 1994 .

I offer all this as an explanation for a focus on strategic bombing from a civilian perspective, which this BBC programme addresses.
Having said all that, the price paid by Bomber Command MUST be recognised with a major monument in London.

Criticism 2/ The vital role of the RAF in transportation, from dropping Paras in WWII to the Berlin airlift in 47/8, to modern air drops in disasters around the world. Ditto helicopters.

3/ The programme missed a chance to cite High Flight, the greatest poem to aviation, written by Canadian John Gillespie McGee shortly before his death in a Spitfire over England in 1941.

Overall, a pretty good effort to present the RAF's history to a general audience.