The Battle of Britain to be Re-Made?
More Hurricanes required
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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, 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."
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.
fought before. The efforts of the Regia Aeronautica were almost as nothing compared with those of these deadly Stukas of the Luftwaffe."
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.
Contrary to your claim, Stukas were in fact by far the most devastating anti-shipping asset the Luftwaffe posessed.
Talk about rewriting history.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: East Sussex
Age: 68
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?) 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 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.
One particular raid by ten Stukas (or was it Ju 88s?) 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 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.
