“The Longest Day” isn’t actually all that technically accurate (despite what the critics say). Here are just a few of the technical bloopers in the film –

* Landing Craft used in film are too modern
* Parachute dropping planes/glider tugs are Lancasters (never used in this role)
* During the strafing scene we see a point of view shot (alternated with footage shot from inside the Nord’s cockpit) which is far too slow (about 100mph at most ) giving the game away that it was shot from a slow flying helicopter not a 300mph fighter.
* The Sherman tanks seen in the movie
are post -war French versions with completely different turrets and guns to the 1944 versions.

I have noticed that a lot of the information given on the Internet Movie Database about planes etc is often wrong.

Colin

I apologize folks, my dad looked at the plans wrong, it actually looks like a pitot tube in the wing. On a side note does anybody have any information on No. 307 sqdrn. Also would the Defiant had been better off with two fifties, instead of four .303’s? Would the pair of .50’s had more punch?

There was an interesting article about WW2 aircraft guns in a recent edition of “Aeroplane”. As a rule of thumb the 0.50 Colt- Browning had three times the firepower of the 0.303 gun so a Defiant turret with two fifties would have 50% more hitting power than 4 x 303s plus it would have a longer effective range. Wing Cdr Dizzy Allen always said that if the RAF had adopted the .0.50 gun instead of the 0.303 in the late thirties then far more German planes would have been shot down in the first two years of the war and our bombers would have been better protected throughout the war.

Colin

Some very interesting points about the Defiant. Maybe if they had fitted a more powerful engine and additional forward firing guns it could have been even more effective in night fighter role.

Colin

The best information available on the making of ” A Bridge Too Far” is the copy of “After the Battle” magazine which contains a feature on the making of the film. A copy of this (as a back issue) may still be available.

I recall that eleven C 47s were used in “A Bridge Too Far” which included examples from Israel,Finland,Denmark and even one from Uganda.

Spitfire IX MH434 was used (piloted by Neil Williams ) and a number of AT-6s (four I think) were used to represent Typhoons,Thunderbolts and Fw 190s though the “190s” didn’t make it to the final cut of the film.

Colin

The Lancaster was sold to Charles Church in the mid eighties. Then there was the hangar roof collapse incident at BAe Woodford about 1987, I think. The legal arguments following this went on for years and by this time Charles Church had died. I think the Lanc was sold to a British owner before being sold on to Kermit Weeks.

I believe the Fairey Battle was also sold to a British owner originally( ? Charles Church). I remember seeing it outside at Duxford partially covered by a tarpaulin in the late eighties/early nineties. Sometime after this it was bought by a museum in Brussels where it now resides.

Colin

I read somewhere that the “flying wing” in “Raiders” was based on German Horten designs – but it is wrong for the period (1936). Apparently the aircraft used was a very realistic non – flying replica constructed by British Aerospace.

Incidentally I believe the flying boat seen in the film was a Short Solent.

Colin

There is a full – page article in today’s “Daily Mail” (Dec 14) about the proposed “Dambusters” remake.

Colin

The original “Dambusters”is probably my favourite film of all time. I think I have read every book and watched every documentary ever made about the subject.

If I can play Devil’s advocate here, I am actually quite excited about the prospect of a “Dambusters” remake. Maybe the film will be awful but why don’t we wait and see what it is like before we condemn it?

The original film (though excellent ) wasn’t entirely accurate. Here are just a few of the “bloopers” in the film –

Wrong mark of Wellington painted post war silver,some test drop footage shows Mosquitoes dropping “Highball” instead of Lancs dropping “Upkeep”, Special Lancasters used in film look well -worn with peeling paint (in reality they were brand new), Lancs have tail turrets with twin 0.50s instead of four 303s, exact details of Upkeep not shown, more dams were attacked than was shown in film,spotlight idea did not originate from theatre visit.

And of course Richard Todd at 35 was 10 years older than Gibson was at the time of the raid. Also ,from what I have read,Gibson (though undoubtedly a hero)was quite a difficult character who was not universally liked by all his men and certainly wasn’t the perfect gentleman depicted in the film.

As for the logistics of the film making , I don’t see any reason why NX611 and PA474 could not be temporarily converted to Dambuster spec for the film. Think of all the Spitfires that were modified for “Battle of Britain” and then converted back to their original configuration. I am sure the CWH might agree to let their Lanc be used if the filmmakers paid them enough.

PA474 could be used for some of the flight scenes and the image multiplied using computer. The most difficult sequences to film would be the practice and attack scenes where CGI or models would have to be used as real Lancasters would be too valuable to risk.

I reckon the makers would have to build at least one Lancaster replica fuselage for interior scenes and possibly build some non – flying static or taxiable replicas. Who knows what benefits there might be to the warbird community?

Best Wishes,

Colin