XN923Shoeburyness is in Essex, but it had crossed my mind that Donna Nook would have been nearer and required travelling through less heavily populated areas.
If the base plate had been removed, presumably it would have been possible to steam the explosive out.
Urban myth sounds feasible.
That amount of explosive would have taken a hell of a long time to steam out, plus the passage of time could have made it unstable – presumably safer to just detonate from a very large distance. On the other hand, transporting it all that way can’t exactly have been considered all that safe either. Does begin to sound like an urban myth…
There must be records from Shoeburyness that can confirm or deny?
XN923Got this from the WWIIRe-enacting forum
wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum
By a member called ‘Bodge Deep’
😀 😀 😀
Surely better to use B1Bs instead of the B17s. In fact why not locate the action to the Gulf War?
XN923By the way, on the “motion capture” idea – I wouldn’t use the circles on it (and I doubt they’d work well anyway, because they usually use a black background for motion capture). If you wanted to use an aircraft, I’d have thought the best way of doing it would be to fit an aircraft with some telemetry systems to record attitude, control positions etc – basically a “black box”. The aircraft’s location could be recorded with GPS etc.
If you’re doing this, why not use an afternoon with the BBMF Lanc to build a computer model?
I still think if you’re going to reproduce the feel of a Lanc you’d have to put a sensor on every rivet!
XN923I know nothing of this, but having watched a few ‘making of’ type documentaries I’d guess best of all would be to fly a DC6 or similar aircraft through the manouveres with those little discs all over it that outline how each part is moving. Then to build the CGI Lanc around those points
Moggy
‘Motion capture’ with aircraft… that’s really interesting. I wonder if it’s been done? Somehow I doubt it – quick Moggy, patent the idea before Peter Jackson gets his hands on it!
It might just be possible to modify ‘live’ Lancs with CGI. Interesting thought.
Still, I’d rather they made a film about the attempts to sink the ‘Tirpitz’ (Fleet Air Arm and RAF), or a no-expense spared epic about the defence of Malta, or the battle of Jutland, or Bomber Command generally, or Taranto, or anything that hasn’t been done before and would add to the canon rather than something that, if we’re lucky, is about as good as the original but with better visuals.
In fact, I’m going to write a Taranto script. Anyone with me? I’ll need technical advisors.
XN923But then you have to remember that the Japanese and German use of fighter tactics was completely different, and therefore they chose aircraft that played to these tactics. The Germans had been very influenced by the fighting they had seen in Spain, where faster fighters could employ hit and run techniques to overpower slower but tighter turning adversaries. The Japanese didn’t think much of the 109, or its counterpart the Heinkel He112, because they favoured tightness of turn and agility above speed – the opposite to German thinking. They also preferred radial engines to liquid cooled units.
Zeroes in the BofB is an interesting scenario, but the Germans would have had to change tactics completely to get the best of them. They might have ended up being more vulnerable, harder to hit but easier to damage.
…And though a lot is made of range of the 109, it only had something like seven seconds worth of ammunition for the cannon, and thirty for the machine guns. Not a lot of point hanging around with the bombers once your ammo has gone.
XN923Bwahahaahahahaha! No, let’s get completely hung up on history. To do otherwise is an insult to those that made it. U571, Pearl Harbor etc are risible, but more importantly to the great unwashed they become the truth, and of course the original Dambusters (book and film) is why certain myths on Operation Chastise persist today. This is why the Hollywood purveyors of such nonsense are so rightly lambasted.
Done well, then yes. Anything less is not deserving of the men of 617, heroes all.
…I am always amused by the opening speech by the narrator of ‘Braveheart’ which includes the line ‘historians will call me a liar’. Yes, I think, and anyone else in possession of the facts will too.
Cf the recent ‘King Arthur’ which appears to be staking itself on being the ‘true story’ when it is actually based on a few archaelogical remains, the rehashed writings of Mallory and Chretian de Troyes and a barrel load of speculation.
It must be historically accurate, according to the current thinking anyway, or it is nothing. What are the innaccuracies of the original film and Brickhill’s book then? I’d be interested to hear. All I’m aware of is the ‘showgirls-giving-Gibson-the-spotlight-idea’ thing (made up for dramatic purposes), the size and shape of the Upkeep weapons (classified at the time so guessed at) and the footage of a Mossie testing the weapon (actually rehashed from a Highball test shot) and things like that…
Oh, and cast.
Gibson: Linus Roach
Harris: Bernard Hill
Wallis: Corin Redgrave – let’s keep it in the family
What we’ll actually get will probably be:
Gibson: Orlando Bloom
Harris: Tim Curry, played for evil
Wallis: Benny Hill digitally resurrected
XN923Doghouse, now you’re speaking my language…..something I have mulled over time and again, how the Corsair would’ve done in Europe against the Nazi’s best…..My basic conclusion has been this….at or below 25,000 ft, the Corsair was equal to or better than anything the Allies could come up with (Mustang, Spitfire, P-38, P-47, whatever)…and THOSE were by then basically better than anything the Axis forces could come up with (except the 262 jet) so therefore it stands to reason that the Corsair would’ve faired fairly well against the Axis planes…now, granted, this is a GENERALITY, in some categories some planes may score better in performance than the F4U, in some they may come off WORSE than the Corsair, but all around I think it’s safe to say the Corsair would’ve held it’s own, ESPECIALLY in the case of the faster F4U-4…
Would LOVE to have Rob Mears 2 cents worth on this particular thread and see what he thinks also…
Don’t know about the P-38 question…M
Corsair,
You don’t mention the Hawker Tempest in this scenario – shame because it was easily the highest performing Allied fighter aircraft in this theatre of operations. I don’t know how its performance matches up with the Corsair though, I’d be interested to hear opinions. Sounds like the F4U could have acquitted itself pretty well.
I’m also not sure about your assertion that allied fighters were superior to Axis ones at this stage in the war – from what I have heard, the FW190D was the equal of most aircraft, and the clincher was that by this stage in the war the German pilots who were left were very experienced and canny fliers, while the Allies had quite a few rookie reinforcements in their ranks.
Thoughts, opinions…
XN923[QUOTE=Merlin3945]
All I really wanted to know was how you could justify that statement about aeromodelling and what you experiance of it was.
As for the 633 squadron crack. Brilliant film and very good model making for its day even reall flying models were in the infancy at the time and the reason these models didnt look that good in flight was that th were on a static line and not free to move at all. Thats why you get that awful and totally awkward turn away for the hills. Great film bad effects but cant compare that with modern day models.
I am an aeromodeller myself – though static stuff. I have enormous respect for modellers, particularly those who can get models into the air! Moreover, I am ever more convinced that you can do most of the flying sequences of a film with models.
However…
I still think that there are one or two types of shot – that would be pretty critical in a Dam Busters remake – where you can’t reproduce the feel of a real aeroplane, particularly a big, heavy beast like a Lancaster. It shakes, it vibrates, it moves the landscape. It’s awe inspiring when it comes overhead. 633 Squadron may be moot, so let’s look at a more modern example. The crashing Spit in Dark Blue World looks great, but it has muck and dirt and smoke thrown in front of the camera, some more of that added with CGI and even then the shot only lasts about a second. Any clearer, or any longer and it starts to look fake. Furthermore, I think problems of ‘feel’ are compounded with big aircraft – the Antonov An-124 in Die Another Day just looked rum. It has to be done well. Yes, in terms of manouevring in the air, a model can do exactly what the real thing does, but when it gets close to the Earth, you start to lose something.
I’m willing to be proved wrong, and I think I may be talking myself out of my argument, because for the few shots where (I believe) a real aircraft is truly necessary, the two flying examples may well be available, plus Just Jane for taxiing. I’m still not sure I see the point in a remake though.
XN923Yes, this is fantastic news. Now we need to start lobbying the airshow organisers to stump up for appearances!
And HHA, can we have her in Fleet Air Arm markings at some stage please?? I know 885 was a new build Hawker Siddeley Bucc, but it would be nice to see even if not strictly authentic.
XN923I’ve heard that during the cold war Warspite got torpedoed by an American sub who mistook her for a hostile Soviet, and fired back sinking the American sub! Warspite lost her conning tower but survived. Seems far fetched, though the story came from a former RN submariner.
XN923Wasn’t that directed by a Frenchman?
Yes, but it was a British production company – or to be more accurate, it was a pan European project, but with heavy British involvement. I was just countering the suggestion that British film companies were doing nothing to portray second world war history.
XN923[QUOTE=Merlin3945]
lets look at the facts – there are two airworthy Lancasters in the world, both too valuable to start hacking about to reproduce Dam Buster spec, or to take part in film flying schedules at all I’d have thought. That leaves replicas – surely too expensive; models – much inferior to the real thing or; CGI – less said about that the better.QUOTE]
This statement really annoyed me for one particular reason. The part about models being much inferior to the real thing.
How do you back up that statement???
Models are merely smaller versions of the full size article in question and in fact take a look at mostly all the films made today they all have a model in them at some point usually for filming te flying sequences of a rare type or for the crash parts of the film.
the details you can have on a model can be the same spec as the full sized aircraft.
Without models alot of the scenes you see in films would simply be done with computers.
I for one would rather see a real live flying machine than to have everything done by computer.
I bet you couldnt even tell a model from the real thing if you watched a film with a model in it.
Inferior to the real thing NOT likely
Smaller and just as detailed if not better DEFINATELY.
I defy anyone to create footage with a squadron of Lancasters thundering across the landscape at 60ft with models. Yes, I agree, you can do fantastic things with models. Furthermore, I’d far rather models than CGI on its own (though as Daren points out, these days, CGI or digital compositing and models can work very well together). However, I maintain that there are some things that can’t be done realistically with models, period. Models can do a hell of a lot to enhance flying sequences but they can’t do everything, neither can CGI. You need a mix of all three, and a remake of The Dambusters would lack real aircraft – so whats the point?
…And you’re not telling me that the model sequences in 633 Squadron are as good or better than the real thing are you?
XN923Holy **** taki mushrooms fellas – you boring old bunch of fuddie duddies . . .
I get bl**dy annoyed with people who slate Pearl Harbour, U571 etc etc – good on ya Hollywood for making these movies, I don’t see any Brit film makers doing films about great WW2 history ! 😡
Er, Enemy At The Gates anyone?
XN923I was going to comment on that – it’s just not The Dambusters without Nigger!!!!
I bet this (ironically) is for the US market – you wouldn’t sell anything there with this word in it. Even in the 1890s, Joseph Conrad’s novel ‘The Nigger of the Narcissus’ – still on sale in this country under that name by the way – was renamed ‘The Children of the Sea’ for the US edition.
Speculation of course, but I think these days you might get away with it in the UK, bearing in mind that we’re talking about a black labrador in the 1940s, but if you want to sell the film elsewhere (and you have to to make money) it won’t wash.
Interestingly, ‘Nigger’ was played by another lab with exactly the same name in the film, must have made life easier on set!
XN923I think I would rather no-one tried than did a bad job. And lets look at the facts – there are two airworthy Lancasters in the world, both too valuable to start hacking about to reproduce Dam Buster spec, or to take part in film flying schedules at all I’d have thought. That leaves replicas – surely too expensive; models – much inferior to the real thing or; CGI – less said about that the better.
And the fact that they are retaining the original music gives a hint to the pointlessness of the remake. How, apart from slightly more realistic ‘Upkeep’ weapons, would it improve on the original?
There must be enough untold stories from the second world war out there to capture the spirit of the Dam Busters while doing something new. Would any other film featuring bomber command be considered too politically incorrect these days?
And as for changing ‘Nigger’s name…
Sign In
