Facebook fails Vol. 2
Discussion
I was at the 'dig for victory' show this year and eagerly awaited the flyover from a spitfire - it was amazing to see it so low and hear it BUT it didn't have the famously shaped wings that a spitfire has.
The wings were quite square, from what I gather it turns out only certain 'mk' spitfire have the famously shaped wings.
The wings were quite square, from what I gather it turns out only certain 'mk' spitfire have the famously shaped wings.
havoc said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
They will be "young".
As such WW2 is of passing interest...
Which has got to be a problem, surely?As such WW2 is of passing interest...
(Not just WW2, but significant events in history in general: "those who forget history...")
Totally O/T, but there do seem to be a LOT of young people who are proud of their ignorance. A lot of them are now unfortunately of voting age...
As if the Spitfire/Hurricane isn't bad enough, someone recently posted a picture of a Triumph Spitfire on here and called it an MGB GT.
captain_cynic said:
This, and spare a thought for the poor souls manning (or womanning, lets not be biased) the phones at the IWM that day. They would have received several hour long lectures from nasally voiced anoraks of the fine detailed differences between a Spitfire MK IA and a Spitfire MK IIA before getting to the heinous crime of mistaking any of them for a Hurricane.
It's alright, at least one of those is a mongrel made of bitsa Hurricane from across the whole of Canada.Also.
I wish all caps posts were illegal. They make me shout in my head and are tiring to read.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with you to a large extent, the Spitfire and Hurricane and were without any shadow of a doubt iconic as far more than simple weaponry in WW2. They were a symbol of everything which kept us free and ultimately won the war. There is no comparison with tanks and rifles.havoc said:
I went to school >20 years ago and I think the 'chronological' comment above may be correct - nothing 20th century (and very little 19th century) was studied until A-Level...where the curriculum was "Europe in the last 200 years".
(how ethno-centric is that? Because of course nothing interesting outside of Europe has happened anytime since 1800...)
Conversely my 6y.o. lad has just done the Pharonic Egyptians at school...
My daughter is currently studying GCSE History. I can't off hand remember everything they're doing, but I know one large module is medical history, so they're looking at advances in medical treatment right through history, the social changes that accompanied that and so on. It struck me as a really sensible and useful way to approach the teaching of history, and far more valuable than something like learning the Kings and Queens of England in order.(how ethno-centric is that? Because of course nothing interesting outside of Europe has happened anytime since 1800...)
Conversely my 6y.o. lad has just done the Pharonic Egyptians at school...
Kermit power said:
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with you to a large extent, the Spitfire and Hurricane and were without any shadow of a doubt iconic as far more than simple weaponry in WW2. They were a symbol of everything which kept us free and ultimately won the war. There is no comparison with tanks and rifles.
Err if you want a single icon of what won the war it's a T34, plain and simple.Fast and Spurious said:
Kermit power said:
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with you to a large extent, the Spitfire and Hurricane and were without any shadow of a doubt iconic as far more than simple weaponry in WW2. They were a symbol of everything which kept us free and ultimately won the war. There is no comparison with tanks and rifles.
Err if you want a single icon of what won the war it's a T34, plain and simple.Besides, if we'd lost the Battle of Britain (and I understand we need to thank Polish pilots for that even more than the Spit, doubtless much to the apoplexy of many a UKIP voter), we would've almost certainly been successfully invaded, removing the British Isles as a staging post for the Normandy landings, and quite probably ending the conflict in North Africa as well, removing that as a staging post for the invasion of Italy.
Do you think the Soviet Union would've won against Germany fighting on a single front with all of Western and Central Europe's natural resources and forced labour to call on? I'm not convinced they would.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff