Bomber Boys- BBC 1.
Very few of those of us on the ground in England during the war saw, and now see, much wrong with carrying the war to our equivalents in Germany.
Our previous house [we moved a few miles just before war] was flattened, I spent many nights in shelters and in village halls, I was personally shot at by a front gunner on a tip and run, and my father flew his barrage balloon [Fighter Command oddly enough] over Coventry during the infamous raid. He saw sights that night that scarred his dreams for the rest of his long life.
Later in the war I was without my father for three years [North Africa] and I saw more V1s going past than you could shake a stick at.
When D Day came and the armadas flew over, there were people crying with joy in the street. We made no distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany, and it is a somewhat artificial distinction: until the bombs fell in the major cities, I believe the German on the Potsdam omnibus was all for knocking off little England.
War is war, scruples are for afterwards. I feel that, if you weren't there, you don't have a valid viewpoint.
Our previous house [we moved a few miles just before war] was flattened, I spent many nights in shelters and in village halls, I was personally shot at by a front gunner on a tip and run, and my father flew his barrage balloon [Fighter Command oddly enough] over Coventry during the infamous raid. He saw sights that night that scarred his dreams for the rest of his long life.
Later in the war I was without my father for three years [North Africa] and I saw more V1s going past than you could shake a stick at.
When D Day came and the armadas flew over, there were people crying with joy in the street. We made no distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany, and it is a somewhat artificial distinction: until the bombs fell in the major cities, I believe the German on the Potsdam omnibus was all for knocking off little England.
War is war, scruples are for afterwards. I feel that, if you weren't there, you don't have a valid viewpoint.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who does "Brother of Obi-wan" currently fly for in the commercial world? Enjoyed the programme but most disappointed that at no point did Charlie Boorman appear carrying Ewans bags or helping him zip into his flying suit.
Pheasant:
I profoundly disagree with you. The Brothers McGregor may think it was about them just as many people seem to think it was about the Lancaster. Both were merely a means to an end, to peddle 66 year old propaganda that far outweighs anything that Goebbels or Lord Haw Haw could have come up with in terms of pernicious falsehood. A generation brought up on GPS in mobile phones can have little concept of the challenge that night navigation for Main Force was. Ewan's minute out at a lighthouse in broad daylight gives the slightest idea of the difficulties faced by those very young men.
As to your patronising comment that we should be grateful for "a f...ing great thing that takes up half of Picadilly", personally I'm grateful to Robin Gibb, without whom we would still be waiting a century after the event I suspect.
Get real guys. The film was about the McGregors and the people that flew the aircraft, the rest was infill accurate or not.
As to your patronising comment that we should be grateful for "a f...ing great thing that takes up half of Picadilly", personally I'm grateful to Robin Gibb, without whom we would still be waiting a century after the event I suspect.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC program makers fell into the classic trap of all Bomber/WW1 & WW2 documentaries in the last 20 years. Trying to use late 20th/21 century "moral values", to judge the actions of 70 years earlier. I wonder what the lads of bomber command would have thought of the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan over the past 10 years.
Stick to "The World at War" format, leave the viewer, if he wishes to reflect on the moral implications.
Last night would have been much better to deal with the brief story of the development of bomber command & interviews with the veterans (not the usual BBC, "You fought in WW2, how did it feel" type questions). Maybe a more detailed look at how the developments led to modern aviation safety systems. ATC, radar, low vis landing systems, search and rescue. I always think of Leonard Cheshire as interesting character of the time who deserves some of the limelight, his contribution to the Bomber Effort and his charitable efforts after the war. Even Churchill fell foul of this in the 5/7/1945 General election losing 190 seats....
Also I never heard of Sir Charles Portal last night. I have always been under the impression area bombing was his idea? And Harris was merely in charge of the Operations of RAF Bomber Command in european theatre. He took the can after the war due to political naivety, historically common with wartime figures.
On a positive thought, it was beautifully shot in HD and the McGregors did a good job linking it together.
And as a final thought, what was the "inserted" section about Afghanistan for?
Stick to "The World at War" format, leave the viewer, if he wishes to reflect on the moral implications.
Last night would have been much better to deal with the brief story of the development of bomber command & interviews with the veterans (not the usual BBC, "You fought in WW2, how did it feel" type questions). Maybe a more detailed look at how the developments led to modern aviation safety systems. ATC, radar, low vis landing systems, search and rescue. I always think of Leonard Cheshire as interesting character of the time who deserves some of the limelight, his contribution to the Bomber Effort and his charitable efforts after the war. Even Churchill fell foul of this in the 5/7/1945 General election losing 190 seats....
Also I never heard of Sir Charles Portal last night. I have always been under the impression area bombing was his idea? And Harris was merely in charge of the Operations of RAF Bomber Command in european theatre. He took the can after the war due to political naivety, historically common with wartime figures.
On a positive thought, it was beautifully shot in HD and the McGregors did a good job linking it together.
And as a final thought, what was the "inserted" section about Afghanistan for?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was apalled when McGregor was speaking to the Tornado Flight Commander in Afghanistan who said that when they encounter the insurgents they fly low over them in order to show them that our dog is bigger than theirs. Surely there is no point in not attacking them as otherwise they live to fight another day. I thought we were supposed to be killing the insurgents? Have I missed something here?
Ah, but being gentlemanly chaps (...ruled over by politicians would rather talk about our chaps in such tones), the "show of force" is a neat way of saying "we warned you we were here, so what follows next is of your own choosing".
It's the British way, isn't it?
It's the British way, isn't it?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: York
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomber Boys seemed to me to be aimed at giving long overdue recognition to the RAF Bomber Command aircrew who were treated shamefully by their country. Their losses were appalling: 55,573 out of the 125,000 aircrew who served in the Command. And the manner of their passing was often frightful.
Shown on prime time television, the programme was aimed at a largely lay audience to highlight the sacrifices of young men charged with a terrible duty. They were trained to do a job which they did to the very best of their abilities knowing the risks and their chances while suspecting the appalling reality of their likely end.
For much of World War II, it was RAF Bomber Command that was the only realistic means of taking the fight to an enemy who knew only Total War and who waged it unmercifully.
Yes, it would have been nice to hear a little more about the Battles and the Blenheims, the Hampdens and the Wellingtons, the Stirlings and the Halifaxes, but perhaps this was not the programme to tell that story. If it had tried to it may not have had the same wide appeal to the public at large.
The reality is that for countless numbers of people the Lancaster will always be associated with the Bomber Offensive just as the Spitfire will always be credited with ‘winning’ the Battle of Britain. And as far as who did what to the Tirpitz, then that discussion is best continued at Happy Hours at Lossiemouth or Marham, or between the RAF and the RN. And I am sure that it will be for many years to come.
Last night’s story was about the sacrifice of a generation of young men, many of them in their teens. It was not meant to fuel or to close a debate about the merits of the area bombing of German cities during WWII versus so-called precision bombing of targets in Germany, which was often nothing of the sort.
But for those of us who have relied upon the comfort of a nuclear umbrella, under successive governments, it seems slightly hypocritical to seek the moral high ground when discussing area bombing.
For me, Bomber Boys was not about a bloke called Harris or someone called Churchill, or even about Ewan McGregor (although both brothers eloquently told a long-overdue story). Bomber Boys was about some ordinary blokes who were called upon to do extraordinary things. And then they were forgotten.
I say well done the BBC, and the McGregors, for remembering such a generation.
Shown on prime time television, the programme was aimed at a largely lay audience to highlight the sacrifices of young men charged with a terrible duty. They were trained to do a job which they did to the very best of their abilities knowing the risks and their chances while suspecting the appalling reality of their likely end.
For much of World War II, it was RAF Bomber Command that was the only realistic means of taking the fight to an enemy who knew only Total War and who waged it unmercifully.
Yes, it would have been nice to hear a little more about the Battles and the Blenheims, the Hampdens and the Wellingtons, the Stirlings and the Halifaxes, but perhaps this was not the programme to tell that story. If it had tried to it may not have had the same wide appeal to the public at large.
The reality is that for countless numbers of people the Lancaster will always be associated with the Bomber Offensive just as the Spitfire will always be credited with ‘winning’ the Battle of Britain. And as far as who did what to the Tirpitz, then that discussion is best continued at Happy Hours at Lossiemouth or Marham, or between the RAF and the RN. And I am sure that it will be for many years to come.
Last night’s story was about the sacrifice of a generation of young men, many of them in their teens. It was not meant to fuel or to close a debate about the merits of the area bombing of German cities during WWII versus so-called precision bombing of targets in Germany, which was often nothing of the sort.
But for those of us who have relied upon the comfort of a nuclear umbrella, under successive governments, it seems slightly hypocritical to seek the moral high ground when discussing area bombing.
For me, Bomber Boys was not about a bloke called Harris or someone called Churchill, or even about Ewan McGregor (although both brothers eloquently told a long-overdue story). Bomber Boys was about some ordinary blokes who were called upon to do extraordinary things. And then they were forgotten.
I say well done the BBC, and the McGregors, for remembering such a generation.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Afghan BBC propaganda piece shouldn't have been there. Strange that this week BBC also reported 9% increase in civilian deaths from air attacks.
BBC News - Afghan civilian deaths rise for fifth year, says UN
Must have been the americans again or hacked drones
BBC News - Afghan civilian deaths rise for fifth year, says UN
Must have been the americans again or hacked drones
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We made no distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany, and it is a somewhat artificial distinction:
Furthermore if the Allies had not been able to stop them, the V2's had the capability to totally destroy London and beyond. And, given the chance, the Germans would have done just that with no qualms whatsoever.
Blimey, post 50, and so far no-one's brought up the old chestnut about Bomber Command being "denied a medal" after the war. Seems like the fact that no such denial ever took place is finally getting through.
Haven't seen the programme yet, but got it recorded. Having read through the thread I have a fair idea of what to expect and I'm in no particular rush to watch it - it can wait for the next wet Sunday. That said, the interviews with Bomber Command veterans will, I am sure, be worth watching.
Haven't seen the programme yet, but got it recorded. Having read through the thread I have a fair idea of what to expect and I'm in no particular rush to watch it - it can wait for the next wet Sunday. That said, the interviews with Bomber Command veterans will, I am sure, be worth watching.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Show of Force is a gentle way of doing it.
It is not new.
Miss PN. studying air power, found an IO's report asking for a pilot to be courts martialled.
The ROE required that no ordnance be expended at a particular village unless there was a request for CAS or they were known hostile.
The pilot's report said he saw obvious signs of preparation for an ambush but had no way of warning an friendly column approaching the village. He gave a SOF overflying the village at very low level. Eventually, after 2 1/2 hours they shot at him and he bombed them.
The IO wanted him CMd for breaking ROE.
That was in Mesopotamia in the '20s.
It is not new.
Miss PN. studying air power, found an IO's report asking for a pilot to be courts martialled.
The ROE required that no ordnance be expended at a particular village unless there was a request for CAS or they were known hostile.
The pilot's report said he saw obvious signs of preparation for an ambush but had no way of warning an friendly column approaching the village. He gave a SOF overflying the village at very low level. Eventually, after 2 1/2 hours they shot at him and he bombed them.
The IO wanted him CMd for breaking ROE.
That was in Mesopotamia in the '20s.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the aerial shots, which I enjoyed a lot and were well filmed, for me the real stars of the programme were the veterans themselves.
We should bear in mind that age is catching them up fast and they won't be around for much longer in the big scheme of things. It doesn't seem long ago that many people were talking about the last surviving WW1 people - we will soon be saying the same relating to WW2 survivors. Make the most of these people while we can...
We should bear in mind that age is catching them up fast and they won't be around for much longer in the big scheme of things. It doesn't seem long ago that many people were talking about the last surviving WW1 people - we will soon be saying the same relating to WW2 survivors. Make the most of these people while we can...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of months back I had a decorator working in my house. He told me his father in law had been on 617 Sqn in 1944. The following day he produced his logbook and DFC. He was a W.O. bomb aimer and had flown on two raids against Tirpitz; the first was unsuccesful and they had operated from Murmansk. For the second try his logbook was annotated "one Tallboy - direct hit" for which he was awarded the DFC, or at least he received it shortly after. He seemed not to have flown again after the end of December 1944. By that time he had completed one and a half operational tours. Neither my decorator or his wife knew much about the man as he hadn't spoken of his wartime experiences and this information came to light after he had died.
He had entered several holiday flights in his logbook, naming the captains, coincidentally a couple of whom had been colleagues of mine. I suggested that the current 617 guys might be interested but whether that was acted upon I don't know.
He had entered several holiday flights in his logbook, naming the captains, coincidentally a couple of whom had been colleagues of mine. I suggested that the current 617 guys might be interested but whether that was acted upon I don't know.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The heading used by one of the veterans in the program is constantly in the back of my mind when I study the period:
'Total War.'
The sacrifices and destruction resulting were understood by most of the population at the time, all the more so after the raid on Coventry.
I felt the programme did a good job in contextualising events for the younger generations.
'Total War.'
The sacrifices and destruction resulting were understood by most of the population at the time, all the more so after the raid on Coventry.
I felt the programme did a good job in contextualising events for the younger generations.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
millerscourt
You may well have missed the evolution of COIN doctrine from bitter experience (or having forgotton the previous lessons of Malaya etc). Our role is not to kill insurgents but to assist in the provision of a political settlement that will lead to stability. Just killing every insurgent is counter-productive to this aim.
Joint Doctrine Publication 3-40 Security and Stabilisation: The Military Contribution (published on the internet) provides more context - some relevent quotes:
I thought we were supposed to be killing the insurgents? Have I missed something here?
Joint Doctrine Publication 3-40 Security and Stabilisation: The Military Contribution (published on the internet) provides more context - some relevent quotes:
The military may have been guilty, too, of failing to appreciate the wider contributions made to stabilisation by civil agencies. Stabilisation campaigns require endurance and patience. At times observing and shaping, rather than engaging in aggressive operations, may be the best approach. This can be difficult for a military which expects to deliver rapid, ideally decisive results; just one of the paradoxes that these types of conflict present.
Militaries have a bias for high-tempo, kinetic operations to defeat the enemy. Such approaches, critical to success in war, can be counter-productive in stabilisation. Properly applied force, however, can gain moral and physical ascendancy over an adversary. As operations to secure the support of the people must necessarily be conducted amongst them, risk that would normally be mitigated by the use of force may be unavoidable. The consequences of collateral damage can erode any advantage gained by a military strike against a hostile group. Commanders will need to manage this risk by balancing three competing demands: limiting military casualties by stand-off and high levels of force protection; engaging with the population in order to develop understanding and trust; and implanting in the mind of the adversary a sense of personal risk and uncertainty.
It is better to modify behaviour by coercion than by using force. This needs a subtle combination of threats and incentives that allows the commander to retain control without losing the initiative or public support. Demonstrations of force, without resorting to its use, can also have a powerful deterrent effect. This may allow us to secure areas without fighting.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climebear
What applied in Malaya against Communists is totally different in my view against the Taliban as they are not interested in a political settlement no matter how many we kill or just frighten momentarily with a low pass in a Tornado, which is why we should not be there in the first place. Just looking at the history of Afghanistan should tell you that.
If the Taliban had not given Bin Laden a refuge to set up training camps then they would have been in power still as they were supported by Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia and they would have been left to their own devices.
What applied in Malaya against Communists is totally different in my view against the Taliban as they are not interested in a political settlement no matter how many we kill or just frighten momentarily with a low pass in a Tornado, which is why we should not be there in the first place. Just looking at the history of Afghanistan should tell you that.
If the Taliban had not given Bin Laden a refuge to set up training camps then they would have been in power still as they were supported by Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia and they would have been left to their own devices.