Inaccurate

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

Just watched a History Buffs video review of the movie, Midway. It seemed to me the flak coming up against the SBD's was heavier and a little more accurate than what I have read. I also question the altitude of the bomb releases from the SBD's. I also think there were too many Zeros as CAP defending the last CV left, Hiryu.
 
The appearance of the flak against the SBD's struck me as what you've mentioned and I put it down to 'dramatic license'. I did not know that the rear gunners job was to call out the altitudes to let the pilot know when the correct release altitude was reached. I had always thought the pilot had some sort of 'heads up' indicator for that. I know that the Stuka used an automatic release and pull up system to relieve the pilot of some of the work load. Again the extra Zero's over the Hiryu were probably put there by the film makers to make the odds against the SBD's appear greater.
I thought they should have shown a greater number of TBD's along with at least a couple of more torpedo failures to give a truer impression of just how bad the unreliable torpedo situation was during that time.
 
Anything that uses an Me108 instead of a 109. it looks as much like a fighter as a Supermarine Walrus does.
The only time I saw that was in the film 'The Longest Day' which, given the lack of CGI or something comparable at the time, I think can be forgiven. At least it was a 108 and not a P-51 in LW markings.
 
The only time I saw that was in the film 'The Longest Day' which, given the lack of CGI or something comparable at the time, I think can be forgiven. At least it was a 108 and not a P-51 in LW markings.
An A-36 or a Bouchon looks more like a Bf109, the Bf108 looks like a Cessna. There are several movies that it has been used in.
 
I just give them a pass if it's pre CG. Zeros have been kind of hard to come by. If a producer uses AT-6's, I understand and it shows some thought. At least they didn't use a bunch of Cessna 152's. Same story with panzers. As long as they don't use Shermans as Germans. It's a distinctive shape and if you were filming in the U.S., you could have come up with metric buttload of M-4's. Then use the M-47s or M-48s or whatever as panzers.
Though not strictly a flying scene(?), in the movie Pearl Harbor, with all the CG used they didn't "overwrite" the Spruance class ships. A pretty good job on the BB's but just left modern warships in.
 
The scenario in the recent film Dunkirk was just silly, the pilot was always almost out of fuel in the movie then he made a kill with a dead engine.
 
Many years back when Guns of Navarrone was released I went to the theater with a friend who had been stationed in Germany three years. He began to translate the German dialog and we discovered two sisters I went to high school with sitting in front of us. They had been born and raised in Greece, so they began to translate the Greek dialog until one of them said, "I can't say that. I's very vulgar." As far as accuracy, that was the only part that didn't match the subtitles.
 
An A-36 or a Bouchon looks more like a Bf109, the Bf108 looks like a Cessna. There are several movies that it has been used in.
I've seen the HA-1112 in a couple of films and remember; it is a Bf-109 with a Rolls Royce-Merlin engine (talk about full circle). Perhaps that type was unavailable or too expensive at the time for the film I mentioned. It was right around then or shortly after that the Spanish Air Force stopped using the type. The deep fuselage of the A-36/P-51 gives them away. The 108 does look like a number of modern low wing general aviation airplanes.
 
Overall, as a movie, for me, it's "Pearl Harbor". Generally speaking, bomber pilots flew bombers, fighter pilots flew fighters, etc. I couldn't hear half the dialogue for the screams of "Nnooooo!!!"...mine.
 

Users who are viewing this thread