Having viewed the official Red Baron trailer, I wondered whether anyone knew if this was going to be a historically accurate portrayal of Von Richtofen’s career. For the first time we will be able to see representations of the correct aircraft for the different periods of the war. But will we see slow and inadequately armed BE2’s and RE8’s making up the bulk of the aircraft which Von Richthofen claimed, as was actually the case?
Also, will the death of the Rittmeister be accurately depicted? Certainly, the CGI created Albatross, Spad and SE5a aircraft looked fantastic, but as a German production I wonder whether history won’t be ‘skewed’ somewhat to cater for a new German audience who want to see German war-time exploits reinterpreted.
I had some problems with the film ‘Downfall’, particularly the heroic portrayal of Willhelm Mohnke. I hope this production is not going down the same route. Von Richthofen was brave, brilliant and worthy of his place in the sun, but that isn’t the whole story. Any thoughts?
By: BarracudaFAA - 13th August 2008 at 15:58
Von R’s pooch
The Rittmeister’s German Shepherd was named Moritz, but I’m sure most interested parties either already knew, or have Googled it.
By: BarracudaFAA - 13th August 2008 at 15:52
Slow yes, Unwieldy…Not quite, DH2 was a bit more agile than the Albatross tha MvR was flying in, an advantage that Hawker used to the full, if it hadn’t, the dogfight would have been over quite quickly in MvR’s favour. Disappointed, Yes if Hawker is in an SE5A in the film
According to another contributor, the film does indeed show Hawker flying a machine other than the DH2. Unwieldy was a bad choice in my description, I was referring to it’s ‘pusher’ twin boom layout rather than lack of manoueverability. As I remember from the account I read, Hawker turned inside Von Richthofen’s Albatross, not allowing the German to draw a bead, but continually losing altitude and being carried on the wind further behind German lines. Finally, I believe, Hawker broke for the British lines and that is when Von R got him.
He was indeed a very talented pilot. I’m sure he would have given the ace of aces a run for his money in a faster, synchronized – gun, tractor aircraft like the Pup.
By: Smith - 13th August 2008 at 02:25
Hello? Are you there?
I’m guessing it has to be Schwarze 😎
By: J Boyle - 13th August 2008 at 01:57
Here’s hoping they get the dog’s name right.
What’s the dog’s name?
Is it more PC than Gibson’s Lab?:D
Is it a Great Dane? (Based on the famous photo of him with one).
By: Rlangham - 13th August 2008 at 00:26
I’ve found the whole film online!
By: Smith - 12th August 2008 at 23:02
… everyone knows MvR was a raging homosexual who beat up his dog!
Here’s hoping they get the dog’s name right.
By: BIGVERN1966 - 12th August 2008 at 22:54
I shall be disappointed if the director of the Red Baron chooses to put Lanoe Hawker in an SE5a rather than his slow and unwieldy DH2.
Slow yes, Unwieldy…Not quite, DH2 was a bit more agile than the Albatross tha MvR was flying in, an advantage that Hawker used to the full, if it hadn’t, the dogfight would have been over quite quickly in MvR’s favour. Disappointed, Yes if Hawker is in an SE5A in the film
By: bazv - 12th August 2008 at 20:55
Neither do I – just would have thought the difference between 4,000lb and 5,000lb was not enough to justify crews of the latter dubbing the former a ‘medium’ when the loads of both were fairly paltry and the short range loads were about the same. I suspect this may have been B-24 crews winding B-17 crews up rather than a genuine statement of relative capabilities. B-17 crews did after all call the B-24 ‘The box the B-17 came in’.
Sorry not been on here much recently and missed this quote !!
A huge percentage difference and doing some simple sums,if they managed to put 30 a/c over the target then a B24 group could potentially have put 30,000 Lb (ie 15 tons ish) of bombs more than a B17 group on or near the target for a similar outlay of preparation,hardly a paltry difference !!
cheers baz
By: Rlangham - 12th August 2008 at 16:40
Well that’s interesting. I always thought MvR’s dog was a raging homosexual who was actually the pilot of the Dr1, because MvR was too busy trying to lick his nether regions….
PS: His own that is, not the dog’s..
Ah, but it would have been a different story if he flew a two seater!
By: XN923 - 12th August 2008 at 16:36
Come on, it can’t be accurate anyway, everyone knows MvR was a raging homosexual who beat up his dog!
Is that a euphemism I’m not familiar with?
By: Frazer Nash - 12th August 2008 at 00:04
Come on, it can’t be accurate anyway, everyone knows MvR was a raging homosexual who beat up his dog!
Well that’s interesting. I always thought MvR’s dog was a raging homosexual who was actually the pilot of the Dr1, because MvR was too busy trying to lick his nether regions….
PS: His own that is, not the dog’s..
By: Rlangham - 11th August 2008 at 21:37
Come on, it can’t be accurate anyway, everyone knows MvR was a raging homosexual who beat up his dog!
By: 633squad - 11th August 2008 at 20:59
BarracudaFAA wrote
“I shall be disappointed if the director of the Red Baron chooses to put Lanoe Hawker in an SE5a rather than his slow and unwieldy DH2”
He does
633
By: BarracudaFAA - 11th August 2008 at 20:56
Well look folks, let’s bring the thread back on track……watch the film and either enjoy it or leave the theatre and vomit. Here’s a new angle: this will be one film subject where there’s no way the film makers can insert a helicopter or a martial arts fight in slow motion!
I may well feel like doing both, rather like I did after viewing Saving Private Ryan. A fine graphic tribute to the GI’s on Omaha, but a disgusting smear against the victor of Alamein and planner of Overlord…Don’t get me started!
By: BarracudaFAA - 11th August 2008 at 20:45
Interesting points raised. Von R was indeed a great, if sometimes ruthless, soldier. And his job as with every other scout pilot was to put out the airborne eyes of the enemy.
I shall be disappointed if the director of the Red Baron chooses to put Lanoe Hawker in an SE5a rather than his slow and unwieldy DH2.
I hope that, as one commentator has said,viewers of the film will seek more information from some of the excellent books which deal with WW1 air combat…
By: BarracudaFAA - 11th August 2008 at 20:39
sorry I started this thread and then went AWOL, difficulty logging on.
By: low'n'slow - 7th August 2008 at 18:01
No comment on accuracy or otherwise of the finished movie, but the replica aircraft look stunning.
Check out section 3 of http://www.barondiaries.com/
By: XN923 - 7th August 2008 at 17:46
Right… I’m also a little confused by particular posters seeking to call into question Von Richthofens credentials as the best ace of the War.
Has anyone actually attempted to do this? I don’t believe so. A number of people have tried to call into question the folk myths that have grown up around von Richthofen and, sensibly, tried to separate the fact from the reality, dispassionately and without value judgement. On the other hand naming anyone ‘the best ace of the war’ is rather a sweeping statement and will need far more than ‘a cursory examination of his combat career’.
He was the top scoring fighter pilot of the war. There is evidence that his actual first 2 kills were not awarded due to the fact that both victims crashed behind Allied lines. One of these claims was when he was an observer handling the defensive MG.
Granted, but the best score doesn’t automatically make anyone ‘the best’. The fact is that German fighter/scout pilots in both wars competed to get the best score and to do so used tactics like using their entire squadrons to protect their back and shepherd aircraft towards their own guns. Allied pilots tended to have a much less individualistic approach to their air combat, and scored much lower – does this make them worse?
And this brings me to the next point. The Baron was a supurb marksman. This is universally acknowledged, yet has not been so far acknowledged here in this thread. Rather, it appears important to some that his aerobatic prowess was not the absolute best, and that this is something of a deficiency!
And yet we also have a situation where…
von Richthofen got Hawker with one round in the head from his last burst before his guns jammed, just yards from no mans land. The only hit that Richthofen made on Hawker’s DH2 out of 900 odd rounds in the engagement.
Voss, on the other hand, in his last dogfight, battled eight SE5s, five of them piloted by aces, and put bullets into all of them.
His suburb (sic) tactics and marksmanship are quietly played down.
Where is it played down? To take my own posts only:
…his extraordinary score of enemy aircraft destroyed had as much to do with his tactics…
There’s no doubt that he was a genius at choosing his battles…
…militarily, he was absolutely right…
…incredibly shrewd…
Going back over the thread, I can’t see anywhere anyone denigrating von Richthofen, just a few cases where people are questioning the circumstances around his victories and not wanting to blindly put him on a pedestal without examining the facts.
It is interesting that the majority of his victories were gained against a numerically superior enemy flying tecnically superior machines.
This I’m not sure about. He scored his first confirmed victory in September 1916, at the height of the German superiority in scout/fighter aircraft. The SE5a appeared in June 1917, but build-up was painfully slow until well into the next year because of engine shortages. The Sopwith Camel appeared in July 1917, and expansion of those squadrons was rather more rapid. In July 1917von Richthofen received the head injury that is now thought to have contributed to his death. He returned to combat in October of that year and died the following April – so only in those six months did he face fighter aircraft of comparable quality – and this coincided with Allied pilots generally being more inexperienced and hastily trained.
Once again – this is not meant as a criticism, just as context.
By: BIGVERN1966 - 6th August 2008 at 13:47
Yes, that’s a fair comment. And von Richthofen only got a clear shot at Hawker when the latter had to break for his own lines or risk running out of fuel. I didn’t know that about the single bullet though.
von Richthofen got Hawker with one round in the head from his last burst before his guns jammed, just yards from no mans land. The only hit that Richthofen made on Hawker’s DH2 out of 900 odd rounds in the engagement. By the way did I mention that I’ve actually held Hawker’s replacement VC in my little pinkys (His family lived in France at the start of WWII, and Hawker’s original VC was left there when the family did a runner back to the UK in June 1940. When they got back to thier home in 1945, everything was gone, including the VC).
Well, if you must use facts to back up your arguments…:D I believe the first one to be captured from a U-boat was by a British destroyer however.
Yes, the first one was U-110, captured by HMS Bulldog in the North Atlantic during May 1941 , but she sank while under tow back to the UK. An other U-boat captured by the British was U-559, which was boarded after being depth charged to the surface in October 1942, off the coast of Egypt, while Two Royal Navy personnel and a NAFFI canteen assistant from HMS Petard swam naked to the abandoned submarine and captured the Crypto materiel on board. The two RN personnel were still on board when the sub sank, and drowned. In total there were some 15 captures of Naval Enigma material during World War II, all but 2 by the Royal Navy. The RCN captured U-774 and the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944, which they actually manage to salvage, and is still in existence today (plus it did have a non-enigma coding system onboard that the Allies did want to get thier hands on). As for the real U-571, it was sunk by a Short Sunderland of 461 Sqn RAAF with 250lb depth charges off the coast of Ireland in Jan 1944.
By: DazDaMan - 6th August 2008 at 12:24
The trailer is kicking about on YouTube somewhere….
Sign In
July 31, 2008 at 9:58 am