Aviation myths that will not die

[wuzak]

During early '70s I saw a war movie about the Battle of El Alamein.

"Battle stations!" a British sentinel shouted "a Division of Italian tanks is coming to us!"

Clearly silouetted against the sunset light there were half a dozen of … M-47s.

If Italians have had M-47s at the battle of El Alamein I think history could have been a little bit different….

That is not an attempt to change history, but rather working with what they had. Doubtless the period accurate Italian Tanks were hard to come by, so they used a substitute. Similarly the aircraft in Battle of Britain were not accurate, but they had to work with their budget and what was available.

Now, of course, budgets for such movies tend to be bigger and CGI can be used to create realistic period vehicles.

 

[swampyankee]

They have always been used as propaganda tools too. You might argue that Braveheart, with its rather unconventional take on British history, was just that. If it was it worked better than some overt propaganda films.
Cheers
Steve

Myths will gain far too much traction. Braveheart's take on English-Scottish history takes more -- probably orders of magnitude more -- liberty with history than did the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin novels and much more than Longfellow did with "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."

Made up history can also kill people: Google "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was made up by czarist-era secret police to promote pogroms.

 

[fubar57]

Don't get me started on "Independence Day". Now I'm sure Randy Quiad was a hell of a pilot in Viet Nam flying F-4s/F-8s(?) but there is no way he is going to transition to an F/A-18 in 10 minutes

 

[Robert Porter]

Don't get me started on "Independence Day". Now I'm sure Randy Quiad was a hell of a pilot in Viet Nam flying F-4s/F-8s(?) but there is no way he is going to transition to an F/A-18 in 10 minutes

It can't be much harder than keeping that rattle trap of an RV going can it?

 

[parsifal]

a great piece of fiction with admitted inaccuracies but still showing respect to "what might be possible' was the 'The martian' I think, proving that movies can be closer or close to "the facts" and still entertaining.

There is nothing wrong with making historical license, but fiction dressed up to look like "fact" is just insulting in my opinion

 

[Greg Boeser]

PS: So would you think a remake of the Dambusters movie showing a brilliant scientist inventing the bouncing bomb after skipping stones over the lake near his home town in the US, going through the motions in Washington to have the weapon built, after which it is to be used by an elite band of bomber pilots and their B-17s would be more profitable than one about the actual happenings?

Brilliant "hottie" female scientist. Who has a romping sex scene with the lead pilot. It would make millions.

 

[Shortround6]

Myths will gain far too much traction. Braveheart's take on English-Scottish history takes more -- probably orders of magnitude more -- liberty with history than did the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin novels and much more than Longfellow did with "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."

If Braveheart took more liberties than the "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." that means that some of the main characters names aren't even right let alone battles, locations or any actions.

For our non-American members Paul Revere never made it to either Lexington or Concord. He was stopped at a British roadblock which his two co-riders broke through (one of which joined the ride on the spur of the moment coming back from his girlfriend's house) and after being detained for a number of hours, was allowed to walk back to Boston in his riding boots while his horse "joined" the British Army. Hardly the stuff of legend.

 

[GregP]

Hey, off the subject of U-571, which I understand some find less than wonderful, did anyone see the old John Wayne Janet Leigh movie "Jet Pilot?"

The acting was terrible, but the flight sequences were wonderful!

The camera plane was a B-45 Tornado and Chuck Yeager was assigned to fly the flight scenes as John Wayne's character.

The primary film location was Edwards AFB, and the other jet pilots were Major Charles R. Cunningham and the guy who flew in place of Janet Leigh was Lt. Col. Glen M. "Johnnie" Johnson (USAF Johnson).

They flew the F-86As, a Lockheed F-94 Starfire, and the "Russian" experimental plane was the actual Bell X-1! The mothership was a Boeing B-50 (basically a B-29 with R-4360 engines), and the "Yak-12" was a T-33. Tne unpainted "test" aircraft that "Olga" was assigned to fly were Northrop F-89 Scorpions.

Reportedly it was Howard Hughes' favorite movie!

So, bad acting, but GREAT flying scenes, with some rare planes caught on the silver screen flown by famous pilots to boot. Tough to beat that if you love airplanes!

Anybody have a comment or want to suggest another movie with good aerial sequences?

P.S.: Apologies if this flick has been covered. If so, I missed it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Greg, I have one for ya':
Strategic Air Command with Jimmy Stewert and all those magnificent B-36 sequences...is there any film that could possibly be better?

 

[wuzak]

Not aviation related, but I've always wondered what the actors that were in the film The Longest Day who served during WW2 thought of those that sat it out, such as John Wayne.

And, regarding accuracy in films based on history:

Dwight D. Eisenhower walked out on the film after only a few minutes, frustrated by the inaccuracies.

Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort was 27 at D-Day. He was very disappointed to find that he was being played in the movie by John Wayne, since even 17 years after D-Day Vandervoort was still a decade younger than the 54-year-old Wayne.

The Longest Day (1962) - Trivia - IMDb

 

[GregP]

Loved it myself, Graugeist, except for the part where he goes numb in the B-47 from the injury caused by the B-36 forced landing in snow.

From what I heard in the service (some guys still serving who actually flew in them, all about to retire ...), the pistons were pretty essential at low speeds and altitudes, like around the pattern and up to 18,000 - 25,000 feet, but the jets made it fly high and relatively fast for the size. if you were at service ceiling and lost the jets ... you weren't gonna' STAY at service ceiling.

I also heard that the spark plugs were so hard to get to in the buried engines that it was a regular occurence to have one or more of the 4360's foul plugs during a mission if your flight engineer was a bit rusty with them because they didn't get changed until they HAD to be changed due to failure.

After having helped with an annual on a Curtiss P-47G R-2800, I certainly understand that! And we only changed 36 spark plugs, not 56. I decided if I was reincarnated as a crew chief, I'd opt out of multi-row radials if I could. What a PITA!

Unless it happens to be YOUR radial and YOU want to fly it. If so, bring large quantities of rags and a girlfriend or two to help wipe down the sides and belly when the radial re-distributes a lot of the oil tank contents along same fuselage areas and gear wells ... and your flight suit (or pants) as your slide off the wing root, cursing all the way.

 

[GregP]

Hollywood ALWAYS takes "cinematic license," and the "stars of the moment" are usually cast.

I seriously doubt the scene where the American squad and the German squad march past each other, both not recognizing the enemy ... except for the last 2 guys, who ignored it. But it made a GREAT scene, didn't it? We ALL laughed.

Gotta' SELL the flick!

"The League of Extraordinary Gentelmen" was a departure from that with everyone except Sean Connery being a relative unknown, at least at the time. It was entertaining ... for me, and a refreshing change since none of the actors except Connery were "hogging the scenes." And Connery was doing it mostly due to the script, not for trying to upstage the others.

 

[buffnut453]

I fully accept that licence is taken whenever a film is produced. I expect details to be wrong. Sometimes it's seeing an aircraft or vehicle in opposing force markings simply because there aren't enough original vehicles from that particular military. Sometimes it's the inclusion of a non-critical storyline to add humour or to move forward a plot line. Where I draw the line is claiming that a movie is "based on actual events" but then removing the actual protagonists entirely from the film. It would be like making "Remember the Titans" but translating it into a British high school rugby team...it would just be wrong, indeed the film would lose a great deal of its power simply because the UK never suffered from the racial segregation laws prevalent in parts of the US even into the start of the 1970s.

 

[stona]

Segregation of US troops in Britain caused a serious headache for the British. It was an issue raised in Cabinet where it was agreed that
"Nothing [was] to stand between a US officer and his troops; we mustn't interfere" but also "If any segregation US must do it, not us. Explain US attitude and ask our people to pay attention."

Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, refused to allow British police to enforce segregation, presumably in public places.

Secretary State for War, James Grigg, made it clear that there would be no segregation in British Forces canteens, NAAFIs etc.

Minister for Labour, Ernest Bevin conceded that allowances had to be made for American attitudes and that British officers should be alerted to this, but that this should mean, "educate them, yes: but don't try to educate them into US prejudices."

Secretary of State for the Colonies, Viscount Cranbourne, added further caution, saying the hundreds of thousands of "coloured" British troops from Canada and other colonies rendered the "not too matey principle" difficult. This because these men (and women) were not segregated but integrated into units and formations which might comprise people of several different races.
"If it can be said we have advocated 'colour bar' all the coloured people here from our Empire will go back discontented and preach disaffection," he added.

The British were keen to avoid friction with their principle ally, but were only prepared to compromise to a certain extent. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that a briefing document be prepared to be passed to officers in charge of regiments.

Nobody would pretend that the Britain of the 1940s was a shining beacon of prejudice free racial equality, but attitudes and certainly the laws, were very different from those that came from across the pond.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Elmas]

That is not an attempt to change history, but rather working with what they had. Doubtless the period accurate Italian Tanks were hard to come by, so they used a substitute. Similarly the aircraft in Battle of Britain were not accurate, but they had to work with their budget and what was available.

Now, of course, budgets for such movies tend to be bigger and CGI can be used to create realistic period vehicles.

Of course I was joking ....

But to go to a war with this tank

is different than to go with this one...

 

[pbehn]

The British were keen to avoid friction with their principle ally, but were only prepared to compromise to a certain extent. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that a briefing document be prepared to be passed to officers in charge of regiments.

Nobody would pretend that the Britain of the 1940s was a shining beacon of prejudice free racial equality, but attitudes and certainly the law..

Cheers

Steve

Attitudes are attitudes but the law is the law, a policeman works with only consent and if there is no law broken then he has no power in UK.

 

[GregP]

Remember the movie "Airplane?"

I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.

It's like being an off-road motorcycle rider and seeing these old movies where they dub in the sound of a 2-stroke engine when they show a 4-stroke bike or vice versa. I always thought that was stupid ... or intentionally funny, I was never sure which. So, I chose to be entertained and laughed at it.

Hey Elmas,

What if you wanted to make the tank movie, but the only tansk you could get were the second one?

Would you choose to no make the movie or take poetic license and do it anyway?

 

[gumbyk]

Remember the movie "Airplane?"

I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.

It's like being an off-road motorcycle rider and seeing these old movies where they dub in the sound of a 2-stroke engine when they show a 4-stroke bike or vice versa. I always thought that was stupid ... or intentionally funny, I was never sure which. So, I chose to be entertained and laughed at it.

I think for Airplane, it was done for comedic effect, and it worked!

 

[Robert Porter]

Remember the movie "Airplane?"

I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.

It's like being an off-road motorcycle rider and seeing these old movies where they dub in the sound of a 2-stroke engine when they show a 4-stroke bike or vice versa. I always thought that was stupid ... or intentionally funny, I was never sure which. So, I chose to be entertained and laughed at it.

Hey Elmas,

What if you wanted to make the tank movie, but the only tansk you could get were the second one?

Would you choose to no make the movie or take poetic license and do it anyway?

And stop calling me Shirley!

 

[parsifal]

Of course I was joking ....

But to go to a war with this tank

is different than to go with this one...

The funny thing is that probably more was achieved with the first tank than was ever achieved with the second