This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Mon May 25, 2009 8:43 pm

Bismarck...Ark Royal's Swordfish torpedo bombers..

Mon May 25, 2009 8:47 pm

Maybe go back to He11's Angels and the closeups of aircraft being shredded by machinegun fire - back then they were probably using real bullets!

????

Mon May 25, 2009 9:05 pm

Eagle Squadron with Robert Stack!! Large formations of radar equipted
ME-109s making squared turns :shock: :roll:

Mon May 25, 2009 9:07 pm

Dam Busters, lots o good Lancs flying low

Re: ????

Mon May 25, 2009 9:08 pm

Jack Cook wrote:Eagle Squadron with Robert Stack!! Large formations of radar equipted
ME-109s making squared turns :shock: :roll:


haha ... Jack stay out of this ... your credability has just gone out the window ...

Matt you have 500 movies ... you gotta get out more .... haha ... dam busters is not the most accurate for warbird scenes. Close but there's one movie that stands out beyond the rest ....

??

Mon May 25, 2009 9:18 pm

your credability has just gone out the window ...

Sorry but someone countering my Bridges at Toko-Ri with Memphis Belle (#2 I assume) threw me off.
Actually John Ford's tribute to VT-8 for their families is a real gut wrencher!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL_2saZlNjQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h699GimH04&feature=related

Mon May 25, 2009 9:37 pm

ok a couple of others,
Above and Beyond, lots o good B-29 stuff,
Wing and a Prayer, How often do you get to see a TBM using the hangar deck catapult,

and there is always the classic,

30 Seconds over Tokyo




The reason I have 500 movies is a DVD recorder and the TCM channel

Mon May 25, 2009 10:31 pm

I believe they actually flew a real Corsair for "Flags of Our Fathers", though only briefly.
My most accurate film warbird scene is probably most of the flying scenes in the "Blue Max".
Jerry

Mon May 25, 2009 11:06 pm

For me it's that scene in Memphis Belle #2 when Luftwaffe gun camera film of 17's being eviscerated by cannon fire is accompanied by a voice over of a commander reading letters from family of shot down crew members. Very, very moving for me.

Mon May 25, 2009 11:26 pm

This is a very bizarre question to ask.

No offense to anyone here, but there are very few people who participate on WIX who have actually witnessed combat with their own eyes. I'd argue that it is impossible to be able to judge what is realistic and what is not without this baseline to judge from.

Tue May 26, 2009 12:41 am

Fair enough, Randy - I'll freely admit that my frame of reference is original combat footage, and how well the recreated scenes achieve the look of the original. That is of course a limited view.

Tue May 26, 2009 1:17 am

I agree, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo was pretty good, even though it was actually "Thirty Seconds Over Oakland." From what I hear - just as they were getting ready to shoot, a nearby oil refinery caught fire, and all that black smoke was just too good to pass up.

But as far as accuracy goes ... there is that scene in "Tora Tora Tora" where the P-40 blows up on takeoff, and you see the ground crewman hauling hind end out of the way. That was "accurate," as the P-40 mockup really WAS out of control, and the ground crewman really WAS running for his life. Scary stuff.

Then there's the dogfight scene in TTT where the P-40 pulls a contrail in the humid Hawaiian air. LOVE that moment ... :)

Tue May 26, 2009 3:22 am

Would Empire of the Sun count? If it's not accurate, it's bloody beautiful to watch.

Tue May 26, 2009 5:33 am

Randy Haskin wrote:This is a very bizarre question to ask.

On a website devoted to obsessive details on obsolete military junk? Where's the 'normal' baseline? - Waay over there... ;)

Randy Haskin wrote:No offense to anyone here, but there are very few people who participate on WIX who have actually witnessed combat with their own eyes. I'd argue that it is impossible to be able to judge what is realistic and what is not without this baseline to judge from.

The history of humanity is in part based on a mix of trying to make other experiences 'real' to a non-participant and tall tales told by slayers of Dragons (Betties, and MiGs...) ;) From Toko-Ri back to Beowulf.

I agree there's a difference between you being the vulnerable pink thing at risk and just 'pretending' or observing a recreation, but let's not play the 'you have to be there' card; participants are not often the best communicators of the story, or even what it's like. That's one reason for the war artist's programmes.

No one participant's experience of a battle is a meaningful understanding of the whole thing - given that, should we abandon trying and understand it from the strategic, tactical and personal points-of-view? I don't think so. I'm sure while there's differences in our backgrounds, our different explanations of combat in, say 1916, would be as valid; yours from a combat pilot's understanding, mine from an amateur historian's. Both of us can spot where Nieuports "can't do that"...

IMHO, of course...

??????

Tue May 26, 2009 1:40 pm

No offense to anyone here, but there are very few people who participate on WIX who have actually witnessed combat with their own eyes. I'd argue that it is impossible to be able to judge what is realistic and what is not without this baseline to judge from.

but when you're watching Memphis Belle and the x-17 gunner says HS 50+ times you've got a good idea of it's accuracy.
Post a reply