Blog powered by Typepad

« 84 Charing Cross Road: Dir. James Roose-Evans | Main | 'Bomber' Harris: Bone-head or block-buster? »

Friday, 20 February 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't agree it is dangerous. Do our planes even have weapons on them? and big old bombers like this are probably more dangerous to their crews.

I do agree it is pathetic though. I dread to think how much fuel is wasted by the world militaries. I think we would all be shocked if it was listed.

I think a much more sensible strategy would be political assassination like in the old days. Their leaders and ours to the death.

Assuming this is the bomber variant of the TU54, it carries 8 cruise missiles. They have a range of some 1500 miles and can carry nuclear warhead. Even the Parachute Brigade might find them hard to shoot down. The other main variant of the Bear is used for MPA duties. We don't have any MPA because YMD scrapped them all.

Petunia still in Madeira where it is 17 degrees and rising!

Yes, m'Lord, I agree with your assassination idea but with whom to begin . . . ?

But if 'Dim Dave' followed the advice of ex-Cpl. Duff and surrounded 'this septic Isle' with a thousand and one *small* missile ships combined with a state of the art radar system we could blow 'em out the sky long before they ever reached here. Instead we have two a/c carriers a-building and no a/c to put on them. You couldn't make it up.

As for Madeira, typical! You RAF-types always get a cushy billet!

Unfortunately what is left of the Navy is sea sick...

Assuming this is the bomber variant of the TU54 ...

Well BOE, for sure it's a Tupolev - but "I think" it a 95.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/02/20/audio-tu-95-talks-control/

For a long time I've thought that the Broadcasting Bolshevik Cadres (BBC) were a Commie outfit and inimical to our, Britain's, well being. If you look at the base of the empennage (tailplane) of that Tu 95, you'll see that it is sponsored by the BBC; case closed!

"the empennage"

That's what I like about you, Paul, you add a touch of class to this blog! Anyway, well spotted but what irritated me was that our, er, 'Spitfire' displays no roundels. Who ordered those to be removed?

OK JK. TU95. Just shows how old I am! Still, for benefit of Mr Duff, it is prob as fast as the CRAP RAF fighter next to it. And no matter how many little boats he has round the UK, they prob would not manage to shoot down the cruise missiles. As they say you only have to get lucky once and whole of the Dorset/ Somerset border is glass!

David. Arthur Harris may have suggested the strategy but the War Cabinet are responsible for giving the orders. Many mistakes happen and are expected in war. I do not go along with this crap about Dresden. The Nazi bastards bombed the shit out of Britain and elsewhere. My ma had to take my brothers and sister to the fuckin shelters everynight when my da was in the Middle East fighting the genocidal maniacs. What a lovely war. If the weak leftie liberals and fascist supporting Tories had been taken to task earlier and we had built up a force to make Hitlerr think again then Mr Harrris would not have been required. Solid defense is always required and we should pay for it whatever the cost.
Blah!

David,
I have to point out that your comments about Bomber Harris have been made with 20/20 hindsight. In those days, technology was advancing so fast that nobody actually knew what new weaponry was capable of. At the time, it seemed entirely feasible that a nation's industry could be destroyed and a whole population blasted into submission by strategic air bombing. We were truly moving in un-charted waters - something that is still true today, by the way!

I think I should point out that it was strategic air bombing - albeit with a particularly lethal bomb - that caused Japan to capitulate.

Lady Stirrup? How unfortunate. Just think of the off-colour jokes about "mounting" one could conjure up.

I disagree with you about Bomber Harris and think Richard is right in his assessment. In a war to the death it is better that the other lot get it than your lot. Given the consequences of Herr Hitler's little tanty to millions of innocents I do not shed one tear for what was visited upon the Reich.

My father and four of his brothers served with the Aussie Army, Navy and Air Force against the Axis and none regretted the involvement or the need to ensure that "the other poor bastard" was the one to die.

It is a point worth noting that it is a russian plane near the uk not a british plane near the USSR. They can do this. You cant.
That is what it is all about.Calling the plane or Putin names really is not very potent.

Just shows how old I am!

Figuring BOE an admission is due.

Had I seen the aircraft "back in the day" I'da signalled "Bear" too.

My point being, I'da been seeing it over water, my book listing being, like yours apparently, Tu-54. Had it crossed into our maritime limit (CONUS, I'm not sure about Alaska or Hawaii) only then would the '95' applied.

Exactly AussieD kill the enemy before he kills you.

Gentlemen, move to the post above for my riposte to many of your points.

The comments to this entry are closed.