Aviation myths that will not die

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

On 28th January 1944 U 571 was bombed and sunk by a Sunderland of 461 Sqn RAAF (EK577 flown by Sqn Ldr. R.D.Lucas) which was escorting convoy SC 151, approximately 180 miles west of the mouth of the river Shannon. All 52 souls on board the boat were lost.
The myth is probably rooted in the obviously faked photograph attached.

Actually, as we all know from Hollywood, it was actually boarded by Americans, masquerading as German 'Nazi' submariners, from the cunningly disguised USN submarine S-33 on a mission to capture an enigma machine.

Hang on...did I just get that the wrong way around

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Peter Gunn said:
Always liked the look of the A-12 front end (without the chine) better for some reason, but liked the boat tail on the SR-71 better. Eye of the beholder I guess.
Click to expand...
I think both the A-12 and the SR-71 are beautiful machines, but the ungly-duckling of the three types, was the YF-12 that had the chines form aft of the nose-cone.
 
soulezoo said:
I agree. I think I've admired those two more than any other bird. It was confirmed for me the first time I saw one taking off when I was at Kadena years ago.
Click to expand...

Same here, really stunning machines. Saw one depart McDill in the mid '80's... After takeoff he did a circuit around Tampa Bay, lined up on the active, pulled up about 45 degrees and lit the burners, it left me speechless.
 
Peter Gunn said:
Same here, really stunning machines. Saw one depart McDill in the mid '80's... After takeoff he did a circuit around Tampa Bay, lined up on the active, pulled up about 45 degrees and lit the burners, it left me speechless.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just rolling along and then "BANG!" and gone! And what a roar they make!
 
Harrison Ford is a real aviator, just not a military aviator. And he isn't "stuck up" anout it. Just wants to be one of the guys. He comes to our Young Eagles event about every other year and gives rides in his D. H. Beaver.

Great guy as long as you don't try to take a picture of him. I went up once with a camera and could see him getting ready to jump me. I asked if I could get a shot of his airplane's instrument panel and he about choked laughing. He said, "Go for it!" and wandered away still laughing.

Also, the movie U571 wasn't a documentary. It was a good, old-fashioned war movie, not a historical attempt. The director made that clear at the initial screening, so everyone getting all up in arms about it is just silly. He never passed it off as a historic at all. In fact, he said if you weren't a fan of war movies, you probably shouldn't see it.

Given their skill with the movie, it would be nice if the same crew DID make a documentary about the capture of the Enigma, if for nothing more than to show the difference bweteen a war movie and a historic documentary to the younger folks.

They apparently can't seem to tell the difference between the two genres.

I bet they get really confused watching Star Wars!
 

The problem is that the director saying that makes no difference to the perception of the film by the huge majority of the audience, and putting a brief on screen 'disclaimer' at the end (or was it the beginning) does nothing to help.

A good war film should be first and foremost a good film, U-571 does not fall into this category for me. It is an extremely silly film, even if nobody had ever captured a German code machine.

This part of one British review sums it up nicely for me.

"A generally B-list and exclusively American cast is headed up by Matthew McConaughey, Bill Paxton and Harvey Keitel, with the tokenish addition of TC Carson as an African-American cook. After the German crew is taken prisoner, Carson jeers at them: "It's your first time looking at a black man, ain't it? Get used to it!" It's absolutely true that Nazi Germany persecuted black people. Whereas the United States in 1942, of course, was a model of racial equality, and ... oh. Never mind. Obviously, at some point during pre-production, someone asked the question: "But how can we make this film even more ridiculous?" Fortunately, the answer was readily to hand: cast poodle rocker Jon Bon Jovi as the chief engineer."

And

"At the time of its release, Tony Blair condemned U-571 in parliament as an insult to the Royal Navy. A far more entertaining response would have been for Britain to fund a big-budget revenge epic, in which a small platoon of foppish yet plucky Brits swans over to Vietnam in 1968, defeats the Viet Cong, and wins the war. Moreover, it would be nearly as accurate as this."

Finally.

"The director actually has the audacity to end on a title card dedicating his film to the memory of the real sailors who captured Enigma machines. Yes, that same memory he has just desecrated. This is exactly the most tasteless gesture the film-makers could have made."

In any case the disquiet over U-571 pales into significance when compared to the furore over 'Objective Burma' when it was released, then withdrawn, on this side of the pond.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I think Patton and Monty both had pretty good egos, but I never heard he was cowardly. Tough to lead battles, win them, and be cowardly all at the same time. It might even be tough for a Brit to do it!
 
Well, whatever else Montgomery may or may not have been he was no coward. He served and was twice wounded in the first war, being awarded the DSO for,

"Conspicuous gallant leading on 13th October, when he turned the enemy out of their trenches with the bayonet. He was severely wounded"

Montgomery was a relatively junior officer to be awarded a DSO under the conditions of the time. It is an award that is preceded only by his KG (Order of the Garter) and GCB (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Bath) amongst the many he received. Only the Victoria Cross and George Cross precede the KG. These things would have been important to a man like Montgomery.

Personal bravery is not necessarily a prerequisite for leaders like Montgomery or Patton, but it helps.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I've never understood how people can equate being maybe overcautious with spending your men's lives to being a coward.
Monty usually insisted that everything be ready, troops, supplies, reserves, before he committed his men to battle, and because of that some opportunities might have been lost
Patton's outlook seems to have been to seize every possible opportunity to attack, right now, don't give the enemy time to dig in , thinking somewhere you'll find a weakness.

Who knows for sure, even 70 years later, which got more of our people killed when the battles were over.

But to equate either mans approach to battle with his personal bravery is stupid.
 
Almost all senior British officers in WW2 had held active commands, often as young subalterns, in WW1. Surviving , in some cases for years, which defied the odds, must have influenced their attitudes to losses and instilled caution in all but the thickest skinned.
Those young company commanders were roughly five times more likely to be killed than the men they led. This could lead to rapid promotion for those who did survive, and not always for the most able.
Cheers
Steve
 
Monty was liked and respected by his men but he was loathed by the staff brass hats at the War Office and the politicians who thought only they knew how to win wars. Look at all the time politicians were in charge of a war.

Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest clusterfucks run by politicians. In Britain we have a pathetic government chasing pensioners for things that happened in Northern Ireland in the 1970s when the IRA were killing members of the British Army at a rate of 1 every 4 days

Chelsea Pensioner tells of his despair at being accused of murdering IRA gunman almost 45 years ago
 
To better understand Patton's WWII command, you have to look at his prior military experince.

Like during the hunt for Pancho Villa, he successfully used Dodge passenger cars to chase Villa's men.

During WWI, he became involved in tanks and deployed his tanks as he would have done with cavalry, which he was well trained in.

During the inter-war period, he worked hard at developing mechanized warfare and created the Desert Warfare Center in California for training.

Add to this, his passion and knowledge of ancient military history and modelling his leadership after General Pershing.

So it really comes to no surprise that Patton was as bold and tenacious as he was.
 
A little late, but here is my Harrison Ford story. I was on a train from New York to Florida shortly after 9/11 and ate breakfast with an aircraft mechanic. He said, based on first hand knowledge or he heard from someone who flew with the actor, that he wouldn't be surprised if the guy crashed and killed himself AND that he was not that good at navigating. Well, it looks like time has proven him wrong...so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
6
Views
591
pb43
P
N
OS2U-3 Kingfisher that rescued Rickenbacker - need the Bureau Number
Replies
2
Views
662
NNAM
N
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
9K
RCAFson
R
A query I sent to my Midwest aviation gang - WWII bomber growth
Replies
0
Views
605
fannum
the invention of the turbojet. A letter that changed history
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register