PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   New trailer is out for Dunkirk. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/588265-new-trailer-out-dunkirk.html)

Treble one 25th Jul 2017 08:38


Originally Posted by Tankertrashnav (Post 9841021)
Congratulations Treble One- you are the 1,000th member to mention this on PPRuNe.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: (x100)


Thank you TTN-I've never done anything groundbreaking before so I don't see why I should start now! :O:O:O

albatross 25th Jul 2017 18:14

Saw it yesterday...great film...however the chopped up editing made it very confusing time line wise for some...
I found it very strange in the opening that they refered to the "enemy" and not to "Germans or perhaps to be PC even "Nazi Germany" or "Hitler's Germany".
Also if ditching a Spit would you not want to lock the 'hood, canopy' open? During the film the pilots slide them back then close them again.
I had no idea spits ditched so well!
Also if you are going to glide to a landing on a beach is "wheels down" the best idea especially if you are going to destroy the aircraft anyhow? Great landing however.
Enjoyed the movie a lot.
There were a lot of folks very confused walking out of the film due to the choppy editing.
There should have been a couple of scenes to give historical context to the events depicted.

surely not 25th Jul 2017 21:21

Never mind the aviation irregularities, the railway coaches they traveled in on return to UK were BR Mk1 stock with an upholstery pattern on the seats that is late 1960's!! They should have contacted the Bluebell Railway who have coaches that fit the timescale in all aspects.

Ok that is nit picking, and I felt that overall the film is a very well made film that is loosely based on a true story.

dead_pan 25th Jul 2017 22:23

Terrible film, although great fun spotting the very many historical inaccuracies (was that a helideck on the destroyer??), continuity errors etc etc. Typical Nolan mumbo jumbo

dead_pan 25th Jul 2017 22:29

...as for Hardy's gunnery skills, he had the pipper slap bang on that Heinkel how many times???

bakseetblatherer 26th Jul 2017 06:54


errible film, although great fun spotting the very many historical inaccuracies (was that a helideck on the destroyer??), continuity errors etc etc. Typical Nolan mumbo jumbo
There is a YouTube channel for some good inaccuracy whinging, very enjoyable!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgg...BQHIiPmOxezeWA

I also wonder if the 'lots of civilians crewing the little boats' myth is continued in the movie.

Still, I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Tankertrashnav 26th Jul 2017 09:38

Its not really a myth as there were undoubtedly many hundreds of them, but their contribution is often overrated, as the vast majority of troops were rescued by larger naval vessels from jetties, rather than by small boats off the beaches.

itsnotthatbloodyhard 26th Jul 2017 10:15

If you really want nitpicking, try the review in 'USA Today' which says,

"The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way."

I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm sure it would've been much better and more inclusive if the Spitfire pilot had been played by Helen Mirren or Beyoncé, instead of Tom Hardy . :rolleyes:

aislinn 26th Jul 2017 11:28


Originally Posted by dead_pan (Post 9842236)
...as for Hardy's gunnery skills, he had the pipper slap bang on that Heinkel how many times???

Requires some lead. In a turn, no lead, no gun kill. Unless your 'lead' travels the speed of light;)

Bob Viking 26th Jul 2017 12:51

As archaic as the Spitfire gun sight looks it actually accounts for lead. Anyone who has flown the Hawk T1A will recognise it.

BV

melmothtw 26th Jul 2017 13:52


Also if you are going to glide to a landing on a beach is "wheels down" the best idea especially if you are going to destroy the aircraft anyhow?
Good idea or not, it happened. On Twitter there are images of the actual Spitfire on the beach with its wheels down, having been torched by the pilot shortly after landing. I would post it, but as Photobucket is now looking to charge me for doing so, I won't.

aislinn 26th Jul 2017 14:00


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 9842773)
As archaic as the Spitfire gun sight looks it actually accounts for lead. Anyone who has flown the Hawk T1A will recognise it.

BV

Interesting. Never knew that fact. Thanks.

In the F5, F4 and F18 we still had to pull lead. The F5A did have a reticle, albeit.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU 26th Jul 2017 14:00

The '51 onwards TON Class minesweeper looked a bit out of place.

Wokkafans 26th Jul 2017 14:07


Originally Posted by melmothtw (Post 9842817)
Good idea or not, it happened. On Twitter there are images of the actual Spitfire on the beach with its wheels down, having been torched by the pilot shortly after landing. I would post it, but as Photobucket is now looking to charge me for doing so, I won't.

Plenty of images in this link - is this the aircraft you are thinking of?

De westkust in mei 1940 - Hét ABL-History Forum

melmothtw 26th Jul 2017 14:13

Yep, about halfway down you can see the Spitfire in question. Amazed to see the Hurricane that lasted on the beach through to at least 1958!

MightyGem 26th Jul 2017 21:36

Have to say I was distinctly underwhelmed. Thought the acting was nothing special, RN ships looking well post war, the Heinkle would have crashed no where near the ship and with all the heritage railways in the country, couldn't they have found a period railway carriage instead of the one I travelled in last week.

DODGYOLDFART 26th Jul 2017 22:39

Reflector Gun Sight
 
Bob V I think you will find that the Spit & Hurri of that period actually had what was known as a reflector gun sight which did not automatically calculate lead. The later Giro gun sight did but that only came into operational use in early 1944. I have a feeling that the first a/c to be fitted with the Giro were Mk IX Spits.

Bob Viking 27th Jul 2017 06:02

Dodgyoldfart.

You are probably right. All I can say is it looked like the Hawk T1A sight (which I know was of Spitfire vintage).

I will defer to your greater knowledge.

My more general point is that we should not let knowledge ruin our enjoyment of films. The term I always bear in mind is 'suspension of disbelief'.

When I was 12 I saw Top Gun and fell in love with fighter jets. If I'd let the technical inaccuracies distract me I never would have ended up where I am now. Drunk in Texas, but you know what I mean!

I maintain that it was a great film and if it helps a new generation (or new demographic) understand an oft forgotten event then all I can say is well done.

BV

DODGYOLDFART 27th Jul 2017 14:11

BV I totally agree with your sentiments. Given that it is near impossible to recreate all the hardware of the period accurately it is indeed a great film for the reasons you mention.

I would also add that it is a great reviver of memories for those of us now heading into our dotage and that is no bad thing. Helps to keep some distance between us and the funny farm.

Incidentally as the reflector gun sight of that time did not predict the lead required for deflection shots a great deal of practise by both pilots and air gunners was undertaken with clay pigeons and shot guns. A great deal more fun than squatting in a simulator I think.

Danny42C 27th Jul 2017 15:53

DODGYOLDFART (#99),

When I did my OTU on the Spitfire I in 1942, ISTR that we had a simple "ring and bead" reflector sight. A long forgotten "simulator" called the "Edmunds Trainer" consisted of the Link trainer with one of these sights fitted plus a model aircraft mounted on a trolley. A chap pushed this across your bows, and you guessed the deflection and yawed the Link accordingly.

Of course, it was hopeless, as the Link yawed "in leaps and bounds" (very jerkily), and how we were assessed (if at all) I cannot remember. Clay pigeons would've been useful, but we didn't have any. The aircraft had gun cameras, but they were never used for training - I suppose that the cost of film plus developing and assessing results was too much to bear. The result was, as I have said (on "Pilot's Brevet") in the distant past, "a young man might arrive on his first squadron having fired nothing more lethal than the popgun he had as a child".

I had totally forgotten the "Edmunds Trainer" until I found entries in the "Link Trainer" section of my log of time spent in it. Had to appeal on "Pilots Brevet" Thread to find what it it was, for I'd lost all memory of it ! By the most curious of coincidences, I later served with a Wing Commander Edmondes, an Armaments Branch officer, who had devised it ("Edmondes" having been corrupted into "Edmonds" and then "Edmunds"). Strange but true.

Danny42C.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:17.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.