Grumman Thingy…

Maybe they can trade it in for a Sea Fury……:diablo:

…but….

We have had the CAA utterly emasculated, had just about every aspect of maintainance, operations and FCL torn-up and re-writen, one wonders then, what, if any, consideration the powers that be in the UK have given as to what will happen if and when the UK leaves the EU…. Ah, we can dream….;)

I see.

If you’re going to all get so uptight over accents in this film, surely that means most British period dramas are wrong too. Anything set in medieval or Roman times would be speaking completely different languages. You must be continually yelling at your TV sets in your clipped posh 1940’s voices!

Language and accents evolve through the ages as we know, but very few makers of drama and films recognise this becausae it is not the important thing in the message they are putting across. Even in the hallowed Battle of Britain film we see a squadron commander with a cockney accent!! I’m sure that would never have done in the 1940 RAF. He’d never have been commissioned. It just wouldn’t do to have a cockney in the Officer’s Mess! Does anyone actually care about that? Nope. Because he was a good actor and played the part well.

Frankly if the accents are not quite right in Dambusters I really won’t give a flying whatsit. I just want to see it made. And I think it would be better for a modern audience to not have the discomfort of listening to the poncey clipped voices of the RAF upper echelon in the 1940’s. This is not being made just for 90-100 year olds to get all nostalgic over the way they used to talk (or didn’t in most cases), it is for younger generations, the type who will be put right off by the kind of accents your are promoting because they are not used to hearing them. I’d prefer the film was appealling and popular to a very wide audience rather than just a few uptight linguists.

As far as the RAF are concerned, the early years of the war reflected the pre-war weekend fliers, many of whom were university students. They were just as dead when they were killed. As the airforce expanded, the catchment widened. In a large part, the war was directed and won by a bunch of people with, as you term them, ‘posh’, ‘..poncey, clipped’,…voices. Such perjorative terms are simply a display of ignorance. Sure, some spoke a little differently….and so..??? If that’s you’re criteria, then you are going to miss out on a lot of awfully good films. After all, cunning linguists made a huge contribution to winning the war.

History.

I’m not saying that you couldn’t get an actor to sound like that.
The reason I wrote what I did above was that I can’t imagine any film director in the modern World would want the hero of a film to sound like that.
Even in 1950’s England, they made Richard Todd make his Gibson more human sounding.
As to altering history–film makers do it all the time.
Even the original film was something of a montage of events.
I like it very much though and really wish the whole thing could be left alone.
I have some issues with all war films but it’s one of the better ones, and brings back happy childhood memories for me.

A.

I agree, sadly, the propensity will be for the filmmakers to make everyone sound either modern, or to speak in cardboard-cutout tones. It’s strange, most contributors to this forum would be shrieking with indignation if a Spitfire was overdubbed with the sound of a microlight. I see no difference whatsoever with voices. It’s just as much part of history, arguable more so. Once one aspect of history is deemed acceptable for change, the rest gets closer to the front of the queue. Either it’s portrayed accurately or it is not. Sound recordings of the period should be viewed just as importantly as documents and artefacts. As it happens, I’m sure the majority of the crews in fact didn’t speak like Gibson, – but some did.. The Bomber Command crews were a complete cross section of society drawn from many nations, I’m sure that Jackson, who is clearly suitably obsessed with accuracy, will endeavour to reflect that accurately. The Aussies & Kiwis would be rightly outraged if we made them all ( Heaven forefend.) sound like David Beckham…!

Wuff.

Could be made revolving around Gibson’s love for his dog…. now WHAT was that dogs name?

Apparently it’s going to be ‘Nigsie’ now….

What Price Failure..?

Snoopy7422
My apologies. This what you said.

Bomber Command’s own documentation would disagree with you. Things did indeed change when Harris took over but it certainly wasn’t overnight and there were inneffectual raids up until the end of the war. This is in no way a slight on the crews merely the realization that what they were trying to do was actually very difficult. That doesn’t say that all raids were ineffectual as Hamburg and Dresden testify.

Bomber crews not talking about their experiences is not exclusive to them; most of the veterans I knew never spoke of what they has gone through.

Albert Speer has been mentioned a few times. Presumably we believe him when it suits us – we wouldn’t normally rely on the word of a member of the Nazi regime would we?

————————————————————————————-
I’m not really sure what your point actually is….?……. :confused:
‘Bomber Command’s own documentation would disagree with you.’. As in what..??? You seem to be hung up on some semantics. The early failures are well established, so what actually is your point….????

1. Bomber Command evolved, through trial, error and carefully-planned application into a highly effective machine of unquestionable effectiveness.
2. It was a dynamic environment. The effectiveness – or not – of individual raids is largely irrelevant. It was a successful campaign.
3. Fact;- At the end of the day, by the wars end, there was nothing left in Germany worth bombing. Look at the pictures.
4. ‘Bomber crews not talking about their experiences is not exclusive to them; most of the veterans I knew never spoke of what they has gone through.’ No, not exclusive, I never suggested so much, but it was much more so. Other branches of the services simply had not had the misplaced opprobrium cast upon them in the same way.
5. As for Albert Speer, he had, whatever his politics, a high level of knowledge and expertise. I don’t recall the Americans questioning Werner von Brauns knowledge because of his political ties, however odious. You may not value his opinions, but the people that mattered at the time certainly DID. I absolutely do.
6. My point was that the criticism of Bomber Command was, overall, unfounded, precisely because it ended up being highly effective and was decisive in the Allies being able to win the war WHEN it did. To suggest otherwise simply flies in the face of the established facts. It learnt it’s lessons, and it learnt them well.
7. I totally disagree that delving into all this is either necessary or inevitable when examining the experiences of wartime crews. It’s a related, but separate issue.

When the subject is raised, the facts rather than the myths need to be pointed-out. Harris didn’t indulge is a pointless, mindless and spiteful campaign. He took the view that the use of strategic bombing was able to win the war before events took an Orwellian turn, and reduce the need for losses in the ground forces. He was proved correct. Hitler ended-up cowering in his bunker. But for his selfish cowardice, Germany would have sued for peace much earlier.
The fact that a few spineless people subsequently drew back from the campaign and chose to distance themselves from it, whilst quite happy to enjoy the peace it conferred, is far more a reflection upon them, rather than Harris. To turn this whole issue around into a more realistic debate, we should more profitably ask the question;- ‘What would have happened if Bomber Commands campaign had utterly failed.’ …..:diablo:

Excellent Prog’.

An excellent program, well filmed, and the obvious affection and cameraderie between the brothers really shines through. As usual, there is some silly knit-picking here, when, as many have said, there was limited time. The main thrust was about the personal experience of the Bomber Command aircrews, the history side was the backdrop and context. It was nicely filmed too. I’d like to have seem the pilots view via perhaps a head-cam, but that’s more of a thought than a criticism. 🙂

They did rather stray into the minefield of the morality etc of the bombing more than they needed. A bit of the BBC handwringing I think. This is a long running sore point for me. This whole debate has been driven by a stupefying level of ignorance and misinformation since the time the events occurred. The biggest lie, repeatedly perpetrated, is that Bomber Commands was ineffective. This is a monstrous distortion of the truth and should be contested vigorously wherever and whenever it is repeated. After the early problems, once the heavies came along and Harris took charge, Bomber Command became a well-oiled machine, – losses or no losses. The real, unassailable truth is that without Bomber Commands constant grinding-down of the German war-machine, the war would have dragged-on MUCH longer. Russian progress would have been slower or even halted. (Kursk was a close contest. A few more resources, and the Germans would have prevailed and the USSR might have collapsed as it very nearly did when Germany originally attacked in 1941.) D-Day 1944 could not have succeeded, and would have had to be postponed , possibly by YEARS….. We HAD to win, as many have said, Bomber Command was the ONLY way to hit back for many years. Keeping the Luftwaffe firmly on the defensive also saved many lives in the UK. Awful to say, but shortening the war also saved many German lives. The extermination-camps were also ramping up to ghastly levels. The whole argument against Bomber Command and Harris is ridiculous and the territory for hand-wringers and the wooly-minded. Thankfully, Harris was neither of these things. You fight a war to win, not to lose, especially to messianic, despotic, genocidal dictators.

There is another aspect often, very conveniently, forgotten. Germany, although lagging behind the Allies, was working on Nuclear weapons. They were behind….but not THAT far behind. Wasn’t Einstein a German..? They were also the ONLY country to have developed ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to deliver such a weapon. Would Hitler have used the A-Bomb in Europe..? Without a single shred of doubt, YES….. A year or two more of war…..Luftwaffe jets…mass produced jet fighter…..longer-range V-Weapons, armed with thermonuclear warheads. This was what Churchill KNEW he was up against. He said as much.

The Allied raids on Dresden (Yes, the USAAF hit Dresden too, which is invariable glossed-over, especially by American critics of Harris and Bomber Command.) occurred at the very strong behest of Stalin to speed-up his rush for Berlin. Harris was acting directly on orders from Churchill to hit the Eastern Front. Harris merely chose from what was a very limited list of remaining targets left worth hitting. Churchill, for all of his fine qualities, was first and foremost a politician. With an eye on the political peace to come, he hung not only Harris, – but effectively, the whole of Bomber Command out to dry, and it was without doubt, one of the most disreputable things that he ever did. To put the workings of Churchill’s mind into context, read Chris Creightons OpJB, especially in relation to Pearl Harbor and Dieppe, and it will change ones view of the Second World War forever. Make no mistake, Churchill was a war-winner because he could be utterly ruthless when he needed to be, and thank God he was there when we needed him.

Lastly, the final word must go to the man who knew the most about the effect of Bomber Commands raids, the man who saw the effects first hand, and was tasked with the impossible and unenviable and impossible task of trying to repair and keep running, the German war-machine; Albert Speer. After the war he wrote and spoke at lenght and was totally unequivocal in stating that Bomber Commands efforts made the war utterly unwinable for Germany, and was the engine that drove the timetable for defeat. There is absolutely no counter argument to that testimony. None.

Of course, the wrongs done to Bomber Command and it’s members, and the memory of the fifty-five thousand or so who died can never, ever be undone. What can be done however, is for the truth, the facts to be told, and the ignorance and misinformation to be countered, wherever, and whenever it is encountered, with some of the resolve and resolution displayed by those boys, and that’s what they were. It’s the least we can do.