I wouldn’t say that’s true of some, especially the likes of The Guns of Navarone or the films of the 1960s and early 70s.

No, as I said, there are exceptions but there has also been a tradition of ‘war stories’ (as opposed to dramatisations of historical events) that have shaped the popular view of warfare (especially WW2) and left many actual acts of military daring and bravery in the shadows.

In my opinion, The Guns of Navarone, The Dirty Dozen, The Eagle Has Landed and Where Eagles Dare all fall into this category. They are undoubtedly entertaining and feature some of the great actors of a generation but because of that the effect on the popular view of ‘history’ is magnified.

Even when a film goes to great lengths to portray history accurately, such as in the Great Escape, it seems to be the non-factual parts, featuring the biggest stars and the greatest stunts that people remember.

How about bringing (or bringing back) some genuine daring and heroism to the big screen; Operation Jericho instead of 633 Squadron, the Bruneval Raid instead of The Red Beret or the Saint-Nazaire Raid instead of Attack on the Iron Coast?

I thought Hollywood was making steps in the right direction with Valkyrie but from the trailer Inglorious B******s seems to be going back to the bad old days of the 1970’s and I suspect it owes as much to Tarantino’s directing style as any other consideration.

Just my opinion of course. 🙂

I hadnt realised that any model Spitfire’s were considered being used (other than the the full size props) can anyone enlighten me?

There are several memorable scenes (for me anyway) in the movie where Spitfire models are used, for example the scene where Michael Caine’s character’s aircraft blows-up in mid-air and the remarkably effective scene where a burning Spitfire breaks-up and the wreckage crashes onto a beach.

It would be interesting to know more about how these models were flown, and destroyed, for the camera; for the period I think the model work was some of the best I’ve seen.

Windfinders sent the found winds to their Groups within brief, fixed, time frames; the broadcast winds, based on the found winds, were broadcast shortly after within similar brief time frames. So far as I’m aware only one unit was used, mph.

I’m far from an expert in navigation but I would guess that doing the conversion between statute and nautical miles was trivial compared to the actual job of navigating a bomber over hundreds of miles of blacked-out airspace. From what I’ve read the broadcast winds were often inaccurate and the 15% difference between statute and nautical miles would surely not have been that significant considering other errors.

Discuss…..

Fictional ‘war stories’ set during factual conflict are usually pointless…..typically they lack credibility, pathos, intelligence and courage.

There are of course exceptions but I don’t hold out much hope for Tarantino’s effort here (especially after watching the trailer) but I have enjoyed some of his previous work.

…who would be in the best position – the bomber, or the fighter?

Fighter…..no question about it.

During the Schweifurt-Ragensburd mission on 17 August 1943 the B-17 gunners shot-down about 18 single-engined Luftwaffe fighters but the gunners made claims (which were accepted at the time) for 288 definitely destroyed, 81 probably destroyed and 103 damaged, and these are only the claims made by gunners that returned from the mission.

The escorting P-47 fighters shot-down about 13 single-engined fighters compared to the 20 claims made at the time.

Against this 60 B-17 bombers were lost; about 50 of them to enemy fighter attack.

I should point out that I have the greatest respect for the B-17 gunners, they were brave men and their claims were made in good faith but the whole object of the B-17 formation was to bring as many defensive guns to bear on attacking fighters as possible hence the difference between claims and actual aircraft shot-down.

Probably an apocryphal story but I remember reading somewhere that during the war when RAF Spitfires were being flown of a RN carrier to Malta the range that the Spitfires could manage was given to the FAA planners. When the carrier was within that range the Spitfires were flown off…

…unfortunately the RAF had given the range in statute miles and the FAA were used to working in nautical miles. The result being that most of the Spitfires ran out of fuel before they reached Malta.

This incident was given as the reason for the change to nautical miles (and knots) for all British aircraft.

A banker friend of mine was discussing this the other day actually, he said that banks are fully entitled to call back credit and loans.

I’m not disputing the banks right to reduce credit…..just the manner in which they chose to do it.

I think I’m a good customer, my repayments are on a direct debit; it’s impossible for me to default and I don’t spend money I haven’t got…..but I do rely on my credit cards when travelling so I’d like them to be reliable…..have you ever tried hiring a car without a credit card?

Maybe I’m not a good customer as far as the banks are concerned…..presumably they want a customer who uses all the credit that the bank offers, even if they cannot afford it, and only pays off the minimum every month thus paying the maximum interest.

Now, how did we get into this banking crisis again? :rolleyes:

The other one looks like an R-2800.

I thought it was American…..but other than that I wasn’t sure.

Can you tell the difference between Pegasus and Mercury heads?

Nope, I can’t…..but this is presumably the engine it came off.