70th Anniversary D-Day - No Coverage???
 

I am a little disappointed that there has been little coverage of the 70th anniversary of D-Day here in Australia. There have been only very small news items but other than that there has been little to no coverage. I have had to go online to see any of the events.

d-day coverage
 

plenty of day time coverage here in the UK...lots of media coverage on the D-Day veteren resident in a care home..told he couldnt go to Normandie...sneaked out of the home with medals on..boarded a coach and arrived in time for the celebrations...good result from P & O Ferries..free travel for the rest of his life...well he is in his 90/s...just shows that generation had some balls....best regards malcolm :salute:

I agree Scott. And what we saw had bloody Abbott's head all over it.

Malcolm we had him too on our news here in Aus.

celebrations
 

Ryan the money that has been spent flying in all the euro-leaders and of course there hangers on..supplying fleets of cars,feeding them all...I noticed they kindly gave the veterens a bottle of water and some cheap cup cakes far beter they had given these brave men a couple of thousand pounds each instead of spending it on that bunch of a*******S..and Im betting they would have lots of our cash left over! :no4:cheers malcolm

The Canadian public (ie. state) TV broadcaster had two of its usual suspects blathering on and on during live coverage of the ceremonies. Some interesting colour commentary, but not high enough quality to hold my undistracted attention. The CBC can learn a thing or two about broadcasting parades from the BBC's coverage of the Trooping of the Colours. Youtube it for curiousity.

There was one interesting visual for me at least. During the Minute of Silence, I spotted a 95-yr old veteran and his personal assistant, both of whom I had spoken to a month ago. Stanley Fields landed at H-Hour minus 5 to defuse mines and explosives on the beach obstacles before the main parties landed. The sections got ashore and sheltered under the sea wall for two hours under fire. His 5th Field Company had sections on each of the Juno beaches with the mission of clearing the way for others.

There was a similar celebration at the Aviation Museum in Ottawa over the weekend for anyone who couldn't travel overseas. Although there were no AFV's or HMV's, several warbirds and other piston driven planes did their flybys.

There was live coverage of at least two ceremonies, through the day. I watched them.
Don't remember if it was ABC or SBS. Most news programs did a piece on the event.

I was actually pleased with coverage this year.

Brian Williams reports: Journey to Normandy

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...rmandy-n125211

(Have not yet watched it myself.)

H.

I agree, it was absolutely top class coverage this year. The entire ceremonies and speeches live on ABC with Scott Bevan hosting, and he didn't put a foot wrong all day. He knew his facts and he was perfectly in tune with the occasion. I watched the whole thing live and I was up during a lot of the replay as well. My TV is always on ABC 24 unless I'm watching a movie recorded on one of the commercial networks, which is all they're good for.

I'm surprised to hear people say there was minimal coverage, evidently you're all talking about the commercial networks. I wouldn't know myself as I haven't watched commercial TV for 30 years or more, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were screening re-runs of Hey Dad or Home and Away on D-Day or Anzac Day.

Coverage
 

HI Guys

I agree with Tony. ABC had good live coverage, though I flipped between the ABC and CNN all was very good. I was not so sure about the "Ballet" type show on the beach, But then, some people may have liked that. :remember:remember:remember

Cheers

Tony :no4:

Ballet on the beach
 

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the choreographed 'ballet' sequence.
I hated that bit! What was the deal there?
Nazi Atrocities & Occupation, the musical?

I think we're all trying to forget about it Tony! I think the expressions on the faces of world leaders forced to watch it said it all. I'd be interested to know what the vets made of it, I bet they never thought they'd live to see an interpretive dance of WW2!! Somehow it doesn't quite capture the horror of war.

CBC-Newsworld coverage (canada) was pretty good in terms of amount. Peter mansbridge was -as usual- about as exciting as drying beige paint. But RDI- (french equivalent of CBC Newsworld) which had similar but less coverage, had some dismal "expert" commentator making several absurd comments. such as describing the Typhoon..as being not a very good, or useful aircraft.

This kind of criticism relates to the early Typhoon with the thick wing, which was a failure in its intended role as a replacement for the Hurricane. The redesigned Typhoon with the laminar wing was a far superior aircraft, and was renamed the Tempest.

All things considered the Typhoon would have to be rated well down the list of WWII fighters. Despite its huge power advantage it was outclassed by the FW190 at altitude, whereas the Spitfire reclaimed superiority by simply upgrading the engine. Certainly the Typhoon was an extremely capable ground attack aircraft, but WWII is littered with examples of fighters relegated to ground attack roles after failing to mix it at altitude, and most of them performed creditably. To my mind the mark of a great fighter aircraft is its ability to perform in a variety of roles, plus its development potential with improved power plants. On that basis the Typhoon rates well below fighters like the Spitfire, P51, P40, Hurricane, Me 109, FW 190, etc. Not to mention the Zero, which was unequalled for the first half of WWII, and may have remained so if the Japanese had access to a more powerful engine. Fortunately the Typhoon never had to face it.

Tony
 

With regards to your reference to the Zero, and at risk of spinning this thread in a totally different direction, I recall many years ago reading an aviation magazine article (Airpower perhaps) about Japanese aero engine development. It mentioned the Japanese did not seem to pick up on the advantages of supercharging their equipment, in spite of having access to samples of the technology, including American equipment throughout the war. Seems odd, if true.


David

It certainly would be odd if it were true David! Of course, in respect of the Zero it's anything BUT true. The Zero had a two-stage supercharger long before the Americans even entered the war, and long before the British introduced them as well. Any suggestion that the Zero could have benefited from Allied technology is laughable, it took the Allies at least 3 years to match its capabilities, and they were never successfully packaged into one single aircraft like the Zero.

Unfortunately this kind of spurious critique is typical of post-war assessments of the Zero, which the West finds difficult to admit was the best fighter of WWII. Had it been in Allied hands it would have changed the course of the war. It's particularly interesting to speculate on what British could have done in 1940 with a fighter that could outrun, out turn, out climb, and out gun the Spitfire, and fly to Berlin and back.