The Battle of Britain to be Re-Made?

[LFFC]

Robert Towne To Re-Tell THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN (http://whatculture.com/film/robert-towne-to-re-tell-the-battle-of-britain.php)

I hope he tells it well!! But it's a great idea because too many of todays youngsters have not even heard of it!

[Ken Scott]

Let's hope that the Spitfires won't all be flown by cigar chewing Americans, whilst the real winners are made out to be the Royal Navy......

[FODPlod]

Let's hope that the Spitfires won't all be flown by cigar chewing Americans, whilst the real winners are made out to be the Royal Navy......

The Battle of the Atlantic lasted from 3 Sep 1939 to 8 May 1945 while the Battle of Britain was a short episode between 10 Jul and 31 Oct in 1940. However, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force participated in both.

Or are you referring to this?Daily Telegraph: Battle of Britain was won at sea. Discuss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html)

[Chugalug2]

Remade? I don't think so somehow;
Susanna York - YouTube

[Lima Juliet]

I can see it now...

Cheryl Cole as Section Officer Harvey - "Why, eye, divvinya shout at me Mr Warwick!"

Allan Carr as WO (Mr) Warwick - "Earrr, Chezah put that fag out..."

Paul O'Grady as ACM Hugh Dowding - "Oi Winnie, we've run out of planes, like"

Tom Cruise as Squadron Leader Canfield - "Ops, my engine is over heating and so am I; I either launch or I blow up. Plus where's my booster cushion I can hardly see out!"

Ricky Gervaise as Squadron Leader Skipper - "How many hours on Spits, Simon? Let's make it 5 before Jerry has you for breakfast...yeah, did you see what I did there, I ridiculed a Pilot Officer, yeah, have you seen my space invader dance?"

Mark Almond as Sgt Pilot Andy - "All I got was a belly full of..." :yuk:

Hugh Grant as Squadron Leader Harvey - "Never again, or you'll be spread all over the countryside like Duchy Original Sandringham Strawberry Preserve"

Maybe even Rik Mayall as Squadron Commander the Lord Flasheart???

Still, there's enough Spittys, Hurris and 109s. But what about the Heinkels?

LJ

[VinRouge]

What happened to the remake of the Dambusters that was on the way?

Isnt peter Jackson supposed to be doing one?

[Tankertrashnav]

Interesting that the picture of the screenwriter is shown alongside one of a formation of Boulton Paul Defiants - curious choice :confused:

If he has the Battle of Britain being won by the Defiant he really will be re-writing history!

[Skittles]

Pray god it's nothing like this is going to be;

Red Tails (2012) HD Movie Trailer - Lucasfilm Official Trailer - YouTube

[Spit161]

Not sure about the BoB, but apparently Stephen Fry has re-wrote the script for The Dambusters.

cheers,
Jake.

[Archimedes]

The Battle of the Atlantic lasted from 3 Sep 1939 to 8 May 1945 while the Battle of Britain was a short episode between 10 Jul and 31 Oct in 1940. However, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force participated in both.

Or are you referring to this?Daily Telegraph: Battle of Britain was won at sea. Discuss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html)


Ah - you're AJ Cumming and I claim my five pounds...:suspect:

I suspect that Ken is indeed referring to the episode that ensured that Brian James lost any chance of having any credibility as a serious military historian as a result of that shameful piece of 'analysis' which would've left a News of the World journalist breathless at the misrepresentations it contained.

Not sure that Battle of Britain is really ripe for a remake - if Towne takes a slightly different tack and presents the Big Wing controversy differently with Leigh-Mallory as more than a one dimensional character (for instance), or brings out the role of Bomber and Coastal Commands (difficult, but not impossible with CGI), then they might be on to something. And, of course, there won't be the years spent agonising over what to call the dog...

[Union Jack]

Not sure about the BoB, but apparently Stephen Fry has re-wrote (sic) the script for The Dambusters.

Are you sure that wasn't :mad:busters?:eek:

Jack

[FODPlod]

Or are you referring to this? Daily Telegraph: Battle of Britain was won at sea. Discuss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html)I suspect that Ken is indeed referring to the episode that ensured that Brian James lost any chance of having any credibility as a serious military historian as a result of that shameful piece of 'analysis' which would've left a News of the World journalist breathless at the misrepresentations it contained.

I think the word you mean is "popularity" (at least with certain elements ;) ).

[MightyGem]

Pray god it's nothing like this is going to be;
I take it you know the story? You might fault the film, but you can't fault the story:
Tuskegee Airmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen)

[Archimedes]

I think the word you mean is "popularity" (at least with certain elements ;) ).

No, I mean credibility. If you know the background and the participants (which I do), then you're left in the position where if Mr James told you it was dark outside, you'd go to the window to check. :=

[Ken Scott]

I was indeed referring to the theory that the Navy 'won' the Battle of Britian (how do ships win an air battle?)

Interesting that Dr Andrew Gordon, the head of maritime history at the staff college believes that it was the threat of Britain's seapower that deterred invasion rather than the RAF.

And,

Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack".

Tell that to the Prince of Wales & the Repulse.

But that's the great thing about revisionist history, you can say pretty much what you like in the certain knowledge that you'll get headlines and anything you say can't be totally disproven because it can't be tested.

Hitler gave up on his invasion plans because the Luftwaffe lost the air battle and it was getting too late in the season to cross the Channel with his invasion barges. Had he won the BofB he might have subsequently been deterred by the RN but it never reached that point because the RAF had already triumphed.

To quote that annoying Meercat: Simples!

[FODPlod]

Here we go...

Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack". Tell that to the Prince of Wales & the Repulse.

POW and REPULSE were sunk in Dec 1941, more than a year after the Battle of Britain. They were totally bereft of air cover, saturated by Japanese aircraft that specialised in attacking ships (they'd taken a leaf out of the Royal Navy's book) and hit by six (possibly eight) torpedoes out of 49 launched. The battleships were able to avoid the other 40+ torpedoes aimed at them.

Interestingly, the first 25 Japanese aircraft dropped 17 x 500 kg bombs and 16 x 250 kg bombs on the battleships but only achieved one hit with a 250 kg bomb. This started a small fire on the hangar deck of REPULSE. Several high level bombers also straddled the battleships during the later torpedo attacks but, again, only achieved one hit. This bomb fell amongst the wounded gathered in POW's hangar causing extensive casualties but neither of the two bombs that actually struck the battleships penetrated their armour.

Earlier, nine aircraft had mistaken one of the three escorting destroyers for a battleship. They each dropped their 500 kg armour-piercing bomb but all nine missed their target. The destroyers went unscathed and rescued the survivors from the battleships but a supporting carrier might have made all the difference, especially as the Japanese bombers had no fighter escort owing to the distances involved.

So how many effective torpedo bombers did the Luftwaffe have in 1940? They'd have needed hundreds to achieve any success, plus other types of aircraft to deal with the scores of MTBs and armed auxiliaries that would have made mincemeat out of any invasion force, most of which would have comprised lumbering barges under tow. Operational German destroyers had been all but wiped out at Narvik and they had few other warships of any description. Think how many resources went into the Allied invasion of Normandy: 5,000 ships and 195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel on D-Day alone.

The Ju 87 might have proved useful as a dive bomber against static targets in a relatively benign environment but it was lousy against ships. It wasn't something their pilots were trained for, either. As for high level bombers, the B-17s later showed their ineffectiveness against ships which is why the USN concentrated on TBDs and dive bombers. No PGMs in those days and many of you will know the CEPs of dumb bombs. Throughout the war, the amount of our shipping lost to aerial attack was miniscule in comparison with our losses from U-boats and mines.

I concede that our victory in the Battle of Britain put paid to any German invasion attempt, no matter how disastrous, but I still can't help wondering how things would have turned out if we'd drowned or captured the cream of the Wehrmacht so early in the war.

Next?

[Lima Juliet]

No Torpedo planes for Op SEALION - what rubbish! Ever heard of the Heinkel 115?

I am able to offer you the following piece of almost forgotten WW2 history, which actually happened near Norwegian coast on 9 April 1940.

On that day, at the very first light, Luftwaffe’s Küstenfligergruppen (Coastal Reconnaissance Groups) swept the area between Bergen and the Orkneys with 28 He 115 seaplanes, searching for British ships. They did their job tremendously well, because they had successfully located two major British naval groups: The first one – essentially main force of the Home Fleet - with two battleships, six cruisers, and numerous destroyers in protection screen northwest of Bergen, and the second one, with nine cruisers and eleven destroyers to the port’s west-southwest.

Being in possession of this highly important knowledge, command of the Fliegerkorps X mounted a large anti-shipping strike, consisting of 41 He 111 from KG 26 and 47 Ju 88s from KG 30. The leading formation of Ju 88s found the second group (cruiser force), and ferociously dived upon the british ships, sinking the destroyer GURKHA and heavily damaging both HMS SOUTHAMPTON and HMS GALATEA cruisers. Further bomber formations found and attacked the Home Fleet, directly hitting the HMS RODNEY – the flagship of the fleet – with a bomb that failed to penetrate the Rodney’s thick deck armor, while three other cruisers were damaged by near misses.

Commanding officer of the British naval forces, Commander in Chief of the Home Fleet admiral Charles M. Forbes, after 7 hours of factual battle and with 4 German Ju 88’s downed by British naval AAA decided to retire out of range of Fliegercorps X due to lack of aerial protection and evident shortage of AA ammunition.

So might you change your opinion on your facts?

BTW, here is a picture of a He115 with a Torpedo which was operational from 1937.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/ZDLonm20Mnhc0f5rQBQTrJQGo1_400.jpg

[Wensleydale]

I would also draw the readers' attention to the fate of the Mediterranean Fleet at the hands of the Luftwaffe in May 1941. Not many torpedo planes there either.

Having said that, the actions of the fleet were truely magnificent in rescuing a good proportion of Force W from the island. As Admiral Cunningham said on being advised that heavy losses would result from the evacuation, "It takes 3 years to build a ship - it takes 300 years to build a tradition. We will go". Where are these leaders today?

[Wander00]

Then so is having it won by the Spitfire is probably pushing things a bit. Did not Hurricanes shoot down something like twice as many German aircraft as the Spitfire.

[FODPlod]

No Torpedo planes for Op SEALION - what rubbish! Ever heard of the Heinkel 115?... On that day, at the very first light, Luftwaffe’s Küstenfligergruppen (Coastal Reconnaissance Groups) swept the area between Bergen and the Orkneys with 28 He 115 seaplanes

Please read my post again. I didn't say the Luftwaffe had no torpedo planes. I said:So how many effective torpedo bombers did the Luftwaffe have in 1940? They'd have needed hundreds to achieve any success.

So, the Germans had at least 28 torpedo-carrying seaplanes on 9 Apr 1940 but none of them actually hit anything? What's more, even subsequent attacks by 88 He 111s and Ju 88s and further heavy raids only succeeded in sinking one destroyer and damaging a few other ships? None of this prevented the Royal Navy from sinking two of the ten German destroyers and several transports at the First Battle of Narvik the next day or putting the remaining eight German destroyers out of action at the Second Battle of Narvik three days after that.

Some people underestimate the number of naval units (link (http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-4101-26RNHome.htm#1home)) the Luftwaffe would have had to neutralise for any invasion to succeed. Even MTBs, MLs, armed yachts and the dozens of armed trawlers with 12 pdrs, 4 inch, 20mm and Lewis guns would have posed a significant threat to any German invasion barges. They would probably have achieved more by capsizing the barges with their wakes or ramming them. How much less effective do you think the Luftwaffe would have been once the cats were in among the pigeons?
So might you change your opinion on your facts?No. I didn't say our ships wouldn't have suffered losses, possibly quite heavy. However, everything said to date indicates that torpedo and bombing attacks on ships were still very much hit and miss affairs. Even in the absence of air cover, the misses outnumbered the hits many times over. Naturally, I would not expect the RAF and FAA to have stood idly by while all this was going on. ;)

Next?

[ChrisJ800]

No doubt they will have a corny love story. Hope its way better than in the Pearl Harbour movie. Susannah York's effort wasn't much better.

[aviate1138]

If ever one needed an example of overkill Computer Graphics and impossible camera/aircraft moves that even the small brained would know was a fake then Red Tails is the movie!

I used to work for Lucas at ILM and I can't believe he has let Red Tails reach General Release. All that money and the end result is awful.

I hope they don't make another Battle of Britain if it is going to use Computer Graphics for the flying sequences.

I gather Red Tails had problems with the Director and Lucas took over. Lots of rewrites and it looks like Political Correctness has been writ large.

I am sure any remaining Red Tail pilots will squirm when they see the movie.

[Exascot]

I hope he tells it well!! But it's a great idea because too many of todays youngsters have not even heard of it!

They may never get to see it: Smoking in films 'should get automatic 18 rating' | Film | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/20/smoking-films-automatic-18-rating)

[Wokkafans]

FODPlod may be familiar with this but for those who aren't... .

In 1974 an exercise was held at the Staff College, Sandhurst using a scenario based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940. The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox.

'Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry.

The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert. The main problems the Germans face are that: a) the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy; b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides (for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until late September to assemble the necessary shipping.

22nd September - morning. The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton). In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield. The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings, which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified. Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into the Pas de Calais.

22nd - 23rd September. The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in France. The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel. German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.

23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs. The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German build up in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West. The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%. The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with stickybombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German held port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties.

Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs. Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort, with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs and 7 E-Boats. The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The weather was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was referred up the chain of command.

23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn. The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it could only be done by stopping the terror bombing of London, which in turn Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by. The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures. On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave, but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be reinforced at all.

Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th. The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone, but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only unload two at a time. The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British attacks hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest were killed or captured.'

Dons tin hat.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Then so is having it won by the Spitfire is probably pushing things a bit. Did not Hurricanes shoot down something like twice as many German aircraft as the Spitfire.

Only because they didn't have enough Spitfires at the time and had to make to with the far more numerous but antiquated-in-design Hurricane!

[Chris Scott]

I fear the use of CG would be inevitable. Even for the 1969 film – as you all know – the only "German" combat aircraft available, IIRC, were Bf-109s and He-111s. Because they were all Spanish, their Merlin engines stuck out like sore thumbs; visually and aurally.

Although CG is fairly expensive, I believe, because of the cost of designing and rendering frame by frame, it must be vastly cheaper than flying fleets of vintage aeroplanes. So do the producers of films like Red Tails employ visualisers with at least some knowledge of dynamics, if not aerodynamics? Or, if the animal doesn't exist, suitable people to advise the visualisers? Some of the sequences look little better than the old method of running small models at high speed along wires (as in parts of 633 Squadron).

Another point is that any perspective which puts the observer (i.e., the notional cameraman) in mid-air unsupported and/or in untenable proximity to the action destroys the illusion. You need to feel that you are there, and able to walk (or fly) away afterwards. Or am I just being old-fashioned?

BTW, NotGettingAnyYounger, the first and last of your Mosquito sequences look pretty good on my outdated PC. Are they CG?

[aviate1138]

Chris Scott said…...

"BTW, NotGettingAnyYounger, the first and last of your Mosquito sequences look pretty good on my outdated PC. Are they CG?"


I am pretty sure they originated in Japan. Some 5 or so years ago.

The new Red Tails movie from LucasFilm has CGI that is pants compared to this stuff!

The logistics of getting real aircraft for a new version of TBoB means it will have to be CGI but as far removed from the Red Tails ILM failure as possible!

Google Tochy Suppon

He is the Japanese CGI artist who did "Merlin" In 2008 or thereabouts.

[Stationair8]

Wait until the politically correct mob get involved in the new B of B movie!

But who could replace the beautiful Ms York.

[Chris Scott]

Hi aviate1138,

Yes, have found it, and viewed several more, on his website:
‚·‚Á‚Û‚ñ (http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/~suppon/)

My present equipment is so lousy that I'm having to view rail-ticket-sized images, but I'm getting the impression that he has avoided making things look unnaturally sharp? The dynamics look good to me. He seems to know how an aircraft flies. In the landing sequence of the Mosquito, for example, I liked the subtleness of de-crab in the flare.

[chevvron]

You can't re-make the B of B with the true story 'cos you might offend the Germans, (then they'll force us to help bail out Greece again)

[Ridge Runner]

I fear the use of CG would be inevitable.

Sadly the blot on many films nowadays..... along with the yanks always doing it with inappropriate swagger! We should all accept that the good times are behind us in action movie terms. RR

[FODPlod]

I saw a fairly recent remake of the light blue defending world freedom which involved loads of CGI. If I remember correctly, it was called Avatar. :)

[aviate1138]

Resolution is one of those things that can make or break a shot. High res takes a lot more time and effort but for the big screen it has to be high.

Here are two shots by a Canadian artist, Dan Meyer [ some years ago now] who knows what he is doing.
So does Tochy Suppon [or is it Suppon Tochy?] The deliberate Spit mistake is the 4 blade prop.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/Spit-2.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/Me109.jpg

[POBJOY]

OH Dear those poor chaps in France must have felt so fed up flying the Hurricane;Cobber Kain only managed 17 victories flying the type and that was by June 1940.

[Chris Scott]

Yes, quite, POBJOY.

There should be loads of Hurricanes in a new film, which means - sadly - CGI.

A sub-plot of how one of the foreign pilots got to England to fly them might be interesting.

[aviate1138]

Apart from the pilots [and the mixture of countries/races/ranks that were involved] I would hope the massive foresight of Dowding, the brilliance of Park's tactics and the shameful manoeuvrings of Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas to gain power/ hide mistakes.

Also after the final triumph the dismissal/removal of Park and Dowding needs exposing.

I look forward to an accurate script based on fact without Americanised movie licence.

Onward and upward……..

[Noyade]

The logistics of getting real aircraft for a new version of TBoB means it will have to be CGII'm thinking that we can do this with existing aircraft available now. Remember, 99% of the general population of movie goers can't tell between a Spitfire and a Mustang or a Lancaster and DC-4.

My first challenge is to find a He-111 equivalent. Best I've come up with so far is some sort of Tora Tora Tora dice and slice with the DC-3...

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2812/img070p.jpg (http://img856.imageshack.us/i/img070p.jpg/)

Whatdoyathink? :)

Next challenge is the Dornier Do-17. But I have an idea...

Not sure how many IA-35s Argentina has left, but I'm sure they'll sell...?

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7829/img072o.jpg (http://img856.imageshack.us/i/img072o.jpg/)

Next challenge, fighters.

fighters.These are going to looked at very closely by the "rivet counters" in the audience so I suggest we go for full scale kitplanes. At 7,000 hours construction time per "plane" we need to start building now...and to hell with the expense!

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/9420/img101p.jpg (http://img812.imageshack.us/i/img101p.jpg/)

[chevvron]

Shortly before T.O.M Sopwith died, the BBC News showed him at his home in Hampshire during a birthday celebration. He was esentially blind by this time, but when a Spitfire did a flypast in salute, his face lit up as he recognised the sound of the Merlin.

[GANNET FAN]

Chevron, I think you will find that was a Hurricane that did that fly past.

[NorthernKestrel]

I dunno - we're almost getting there with CGI....

Bit more work and...?

Battle of Britain Day - The Blitz by Barfly - 2011 - YouTube

However given that the writer/director? is the same as The Departed, does that mean that Sailor Malan will be shot in the head in a lift after infiltrating the Luftwaffe???

[POBJOY]

Instead of BAE laying off staff and closing production lines down they might just aswell lay down a line of 100 Hurricanes (with possible Merlin substitutes) and flog them to rich bankers. They could then move a couple of dozen down to Kenley and make a proper film about the BoB.(in the correct area).
When they have finished that they can then move them off to France and record the exploits of the AASF and BEF Squadrons in an earlier skirmish.(no Spitfires required there)
Of course the FAA would then no doubt want to use one of their (now defunt carriers) to make an excellent film of how the type provided them with their first 8 gun fighter with a half decent performance.
In fact with all these films that could be made that included fighter bombers, Rockets, Four Cannon use,Tank busting, night fighting, and being shot off merchant ships they might aswell build 300.B.....r the CGI

[jindabyne]

Having a good night then Bob?

[hornet1068]

Does using CGI in a film really matter anymore? we all know there are not enough `real aircraft` knocking about anymore to make a film without using CGI. to be honest does todays audiences even notice the difference? Most people go to the cinema to be tranported to another time, world, dimension, call it what you will,, they go for the bangs, the shocks, the excitement of it all. they come out and tell their friends how good or exciting the movie was. that in itself sells seats and makes money. This is good because it keeps the real story alive, if we didnt have these films, BoB, pearl harbour, etc, these stories would diminish and die. Historical accuracy really doesn`t matter, its the story that does. You could have a whole flight of B17`s on a daylight raid, all in different squadron codes and colours, all wrong for the time, and not many people would even notice, because they are up there with them, fighting off the enemy, being immersed, being the Hero. that is what makes films good, being a part of it, being transported into the film itself, your brain takes you were you want to go, fighter jock, bomber pilot or ships gunner.
The only people who notice these problems, innacuracies or issues with these films are the real historians or history buffs (no offence) the rest of us see the films for what they are, "2hrs of pure escapism", and if after watching these, we come home and hit the `www` to find out what its all about, surely thats a good thing??. After all, the films done its job. its keeping the story alive.

[Stationair8]

In my opinion there will only ever be one Battle of Britain movie, remakes tend to be a bit whishy washy or go off in some tangent.

[Wander00]

But the makers of U-571 did at least acknowledge on a postcript at the end of the film that is was based on David Balme taking the Enigma and code books from U-110. I remember being at a lecture about Enigma, and when the lights went up at half-time the speaker being dumfounded to see David sitting in the front row of the audience.

[MattGray]

The Ju 87 might have proved useful as a dive bomber against static targets in a relatively benign environment but it was lousy against ships. Really FodPlod? Try telling that to Tony McCrum navigator on HMS Skipjack. In May 1940 Skipjack arrived off the Dunkirk beaches, one of the first ships to help the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force. Having made several successful Channel crossings ferrying home
troops, the French coast suddenly became even more dangerous as the Luftwaffe presence increased in support of their advancing army which had now reached the area. With a full load of troops aboard, Skipjack was suddenly attacked by ten Stukas and was mortally hit and
sunk. Eventually rescue was at hand and McCrum was landed at Ramsgate. 19 of the crew and 294 troops went down with the ship. Just one of many sunk by Stukas during the Dinkirk evacuation.


Or all those other ships the Stukas sank in the initial phases of BoB, effectively shutting down the Channel to all shipping movements?

Or the Stukas in the Med which in just one week sank three RN cruisers (HMS Fiji, HMS Gloucester and HMS York), eight RN destroyers (incl HMS Juno, HMS Greyhound, HMS Kashmir and Mountbatten's HMS Kelly) and damaged 13 other British ships?

Or perhaps FodPlod you were thinking the Stukas were "lousy against shipping" because in the attack on Adm Cunningham's carrier HMS Illustrious they wreaked havoc but failed to actually sink her?

"In a few minutes the whole situation had changed," wrote Cunningham. "At one blow the fleet had been deprived of its fighter aircraft, and its command of the Mediterranean was threatened by a weapon far more efficient and dangerous than any against which we had
fought before. The efforts of the Regia Aeronautica were almost as nothing compared with those of these deadly Stukas of the Luftwaffe (http://www.historynet.com/admiral-cunningham-and-hms-illustrious-in-malta-during-world-war-ii.htm/2)."

The near-destruction of HMS Illustrious, which threatened to tip the balance of power in the Mediterranean in favor of the Axis powers, was the low point in the career of Cunningham, widely regarded as Britain's greatest naval commander since Lord Horatio Nelson.
It wasn't something their pilots were trained for, either.Nonsense! Of course they were. The results above speak for themselves and there are countless other examples of Ju-87 handiwork resting at the bottom of the ocean.

Contrary to your claim, Stukas were in fact by far the most devastating anti-shipping asset the Luftwaffe posessed.

Talk about rewriting history.:ugh:

[Tempsford]

Mattgrey,

The Stuka was, as you say,successful against shipping. The RN losses that you quote during the campaign on Crete were very significant. But, the statement 'bereft of air cover' is also relavant. With little RAF air cover over Crete, the Luftwaffe had the advantage. With fighter cover, the RN losses in Crete would have been less and the Stuka losses would have been higher. One only has to look at the Stuka losses over the UK to realise that. No doubt a versatile aircraft (Tank Buster etc,) and I was surprised to see how big it was when I saw one in real life.

Temps

[FODPlod]

MattGrey - If you have read the accounts of Stuka successes during their relentless raids off Dunkirk and during the evacuation of Crete, often over days at a time, you will know that their attacks failed far more often than they succeeded, even against ships bereft of air cover. The destroyer HMS Kipling survived 89 bombs aimed at her off Crete.

One particular raid by ten Stukas (or was it Ju 88s? (http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/skipjack/hms_skipjack.htm)) may well have sunk the overloaded minesweeper HMS Skipjack as she pulled away from the beaches at Dunkirk but have you also read how many of our ships (http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-4101-26RNHome.htm#1home) they would have needed to put out of action, where air cover was available and over a relatively short period, to have enabled a successful German invasion attempt?

Did the Luftwaffe sink enough of our ships to prevent the evacuation of 330,000 men from the beaches at Dunkirk over the course of a week or more? No.

Did the Luftwaffe sink enough of our ships in May 1941 to prevent the evacuation of 16,000 troops from Crete? No.

Would the Luftwaffe have sunk enough of our ships to prevent them from destroying a German invasion attempt during the first critical days? I think not.

[Haraka]

Stukas (or was it Ju 88s? (http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/skipjack/hms_skipjack.htm))

Why not Ju88 Stukas?