PDA

View Full Version : Awesome film



Jediteo
05-26-2006, 04:15 PM
What happens if you take Private Joker from Full Metal jacket, The drug-pusher from Pulp Fiction, and Samwise Gamgee from The lord of the rings, and stick them all into a B17?

You get the movie Memphis belle. I saw the movie for the first time yesterday. After being a huge fan of the B17 games (both of em), I finally found the Dvd in a local shop (amongs the budget B-movies). The film totally blew me away, I almost cried (I never do normally) at the end. the film is masterly done with the effects and the actors really convey the fear of the aircrews.

But I was somewhat suprised of some details in the film, such as a 50cal MG for at the radio-operators cabin, and p51s in 1943 that run out of fuel early)

The film does contain some quite upsetting scenes, such as an B17 expolding in midair and blood spraying onto the Belle. the part that almost made me cy was the midair collision of a BF/ME 109 onto a rookie crews B17 and their dying screams on the radio.

I can strongly recommend this film to anyone who
likes a good aviation movie, and any other kind of movie for that matter. In short a really good movie

SPLASH_1
05-26-2006, 04:42 PM
I would just like to point out that the US fighters should have been P-47`s not P-51`s but it`s not a bad film anyway

Apparently the last mission of the memphis belle was completely uneventfull
(Apart maybe from flak or the odd fighter as in it was a milk run which was concidered less hazardows than a trip to bomb germany proper)

not to detract from the bravery of her crew

B-17 "MEMPHIS BELLE" Story

1st Eighth Air Force WW II Bomber to complete 25 Combat Missions & return to the United States

The B-17 Flying Fortress "MEMPHIS BELLE" (Serial No. 41-24485) was one of 12,750 B-17's built by the Boeing Aircraft Co. The BELLE was the most famous because she was the first heavy bomber in Hitler's European war theatre to complete 25 combat missions and keep her entire crew alive. She flew for 10 months from November 7, 1942 to May 17,
1943. The command generals had set 25 missions as an incentive for air crews to go home. Morale was extremely low because 80% of the bombers were shot down during the first three months of America's combat flights over Europe.

The BELLE shot down eight enemy fighters, probably destroyed five others, and damaged at least a dozen more. She dropped more than 60 tons of bombs over Germany, France and Belgium. During her 25 missions she flew 148 hours, 50 minutes, and covered more than 20,000 combat miles. She is the only B-17 to have her own file in the Air Force Film Depository.

This gallant lady was bullet-ridden, flak damaged; on five separate occasions had engines shot out and once came back with her tail nearly shot off. There was not one major injury to the crew members. The crew met their plane in Bangor, Maine for the first time in September, 1942. They flew their ship to Memphis, TN on a shakedown flight, where
she was christened MEMPHIS BELLE in honor of the pilot's wartime sweetheart, Ms. Margaret Polk. From there they flew across the Atlantic to their home base in Bassingbourn, England, just north of London. Bassingbourn is still an active English army base today.

The 26th mission of the BELLE was to return to the States during the summer of 1943 on a public relations tour to thank the American public for supporting the war effort. The crew visited more than 32 cities where they received a heroes' welcome. Their mascot, a Scotty dog named "Stuka", traveled across the Atlantic with them and participated in the PR tour.

The noseart was painted on the Belle by Cpl. Tony Starcer. The famous logo was designed by the famous artist George Petty, who created a series of pin-up girls for Esquire Magazine know as the "Petty Girls". After the public relations tour, the Belle flew stateside in the training command. In 1945 she ended up in an aircraft boneyard in Altus, OK. An enterprising reporter saw her, wrote a story of her plight, and contacted the Mayor of Memphis. The City bought her for $350 and on July 17, 1946, she was flown home to Memphis.

In 1950 the Belle was placed on a pedestal near the Army National Guard. In November, 1977, she was moved to the Air National Guard at the Memphis airport. During these years the vandals did what the Germans couldn't. They almost destroyed her! For the next nine years various fund raising efforts were made to restore the Belle. After a relentless, last
ditch effort by Frank Donofrio, a local businessman, the City agreed to donate a piece on land on Mud Island, where the historic bomber could be displayed. Federal Express and Boeing each donated $100,000 toward her restoration and the City donated $150,000. When Hugh Downs of TV's 20/20 aired the need for more money, the American people rose to the challenge and donated the rest of the $576,000. The MEMPHIS BELLE was saved and restored to a place of honor.

On May 17, 1987, 44 years after she flew her 25th mission, the Memphis Belle Pavilion was dedicated. Nearly 25,000 attended. Seven B-17's, the largest formation since WW II, flew overhead in salute and "bombed" the pavilion with thousands of rose pedals. Margaret Polk and the Belle crew looked on as the crowd cheered thunderously. A fitting tribute to the grandest lady of the sky! The Air Force has declared the Belle a national historic treasure. She will never be flown again! On August 29, 1992 Morgan completed his 27th mission. He married his present wife, Linda, in front of the Belle. Gen. Paul Tibbets, pilot of Enola Gay, gave the bride away!

THE 25 COMBAT MISSIONS OF THE B-17 MEMPHIS BELLE


When America entered the war in Europe flying sorties from English bases, the losses were as high as 82%. The war Department set 25 missions as an incentive for a crewman to go home. On 17 May 43 the B-17 Memphis Belle and her crew made military history as the first WWII bomber to complete 25 combat missions & return to the United States. They flew the Belle home in June 1943 and for three months flew her to 32 American cities to thank the American people for supporting the war effort.


1942
1. Nov. 7 Brest, France

2. Nov. 9 St. Nazaire, France

3. Nov. 17 St. Nazaire, France

4. Dec. 6 Lille, France

5. Dec. 20 Rommily-Sur-Seine

1943

6. Jan 3 St. Nazaire, France

7. Jan. 13 Lille, France

8. Jan. 23 Lorient, France

9. Feb. 4 Emden, Germany

10. Feb. 14 Hamm, Germany

11. Feb. 16 St. Nazaire, France

12. Feb. 26 Wilhelmshaven, Germany

13. Feb. 27 Brest, France

14. Mar. 6 Lorient, France

15. Mar. 12 Rouen, France

16. Mar. 13 Abbeville, France

17. Mar. 22 Wilhelmshaven, Germany

18. Mar. 28 Rouen, France

19. Apr. 5 Antwerp, Belgium

20. Apr. 16 Lorient, France

21. Apr. 17 Bremen, Germany

22. May 1 St. Nazaire, France

23. May 4 Antwerp, Belgium

24. May 15 Wilhelmshaven, Germany

25. May 17 Lorient, France

THE CREW
Capt. Robert K. Morgan - Pilot
Capt. James Verinis - Copilot (Died 2003)
Capt. Vincent B. Evans - Bombardier (Died 1980)
Capt. Charles B. Leighton - Navigator (Died 1991)
T/Sgt. Harold P. Loch - Engineer/Top Gunner
T/Sgt. Robert Hanson - Radio Operator
S/Sgt. John P. Quinlan - Tail Gunner (Died 2002)
S/Sgt. Cecil H. Scott - Ball Turret Gunner (Died 1979)
S/Sgt. Clarence E. Winchell - L Waist Gunner (Died 1994)
S/Sgt. Casimer "Tony" Nastal - R Waist Gunner

Joe Giambrone - Crew Chief (Died 1992) - Who replaced 9 engines, both wings, two tails, and both main landing gear

Ms. Margaret Polk - The Memphis Belle (Died 1990)

Scotty Dog "Stuka" - Mascot

OTHER PEOPLE WHO FLEW MISSIONS IN THE BELLE

Levi Dillon, 1st Top Turret Gunner. Flew four missions. (Died 1998)

Eugene Adkins, 2nd Top Turret Gunner, Flew six missions. Hands froze on 6th mission. (Died 1995)

E. Scott Miller, Right Waist Gunner, Flew 15 Missions. (Died 1995)

all in all she was a lucky ship

salute

F4U_Flyer
05-27-2006, 01:05 AM
I dont think i'd call flak uneventful!

Scrapper_511
05-27-2006, 08:15 AM
Memphis Belle is a good movie and I agree that the escorts should've been 47s.

You cried???

Aimosika
05-27-2006, 11:12 AM
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won.

zeno303
05-27-2006, 11:27 AM
Speaking of P-47s, Memphis Belle and "Awesome Films"/WW2 , I have to nominate "Thunderbolt!" which will be playing at the Drive-In Matinee for a few more days.

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html

The original Memphis Belle and Thunderbolt! were both directed by William Wyler and are very memorable WW2 era films, but Thunderbolt never received the Dolby 5.1 Hollywood "restoration" with actors treatment.

I guess if they ever turn Thundebolt into a Hollywood feature film with Matt Damon etc, everyone will know about it too. For whatever reason it hasn't gotten the pub of the original "Memphis Belle," but IMO, it's still a great film.

Seems like Hollywood is long overdue for it's next great WW2 fighter blockbuster. (No Gerry Bruchiemer please!) "Fighter Squadon" 1948 is pretty good & the Brits have "Piesce of Cake" Still, we need one.

Aimosika
05-27-2006, 03:09 PM
What the **** about the planes while US air command doing massacre against civilians, hello?

TC_Stele
05-27-2006, 05:00 PM
Yes, I love this movie despite some of the historical errors, but in the end it tries to convey the story of a bomber crew and depicts what they went through. I don't care what others say about the film, as there will always be any convenient reason to tear something down for anything...

UberDemon
05-27-2006, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won.

The story in the movie is not based on the last flight of the Memphis Belle, but instead on a conglomeration of accounts from different flights and crews. Not a bad movie, but not an accurate movie for sure.

In the Europeand theater, it is fairly known that the dailight strategic bombing conducted by the 8th AF was targeted at strategic targets (industrial/military). Intentionally, there were no missions planned against civilian targets, but of course, there were mistakes and collateral damage. There are quite a few personal testimonials from B-17 and B-24 aircrews nowadays that confirm that, and a whole lot of declassified archives you can take a look at. Of course there was another story going on between the Germans and British concerning night-time bombing - there was no love there. (I recommend reading "The Wrong Stuff: The Adventures and Misadventures of an 8th Air Force Aviator" by Truman Smith, a B-17 co-pilot/pilot who tells a lot about how it was being up there.)

In the Pacific, it was a different story. Once the B-29 entered the scene, priority targets were the engine factories in Musashi and Nagoya; but Gen LeMay authorized the establishmnent urban zone targets in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Kawasaki, Kobe and Yokohama in order to destroy the areas and demoralize the civillian population. Although this would not be tolerated today, as long as the means achieve the end result in the quickest way possible, in the military profession, this is acceptable as a way to achieve national (international in WW2) and military goals - as long as the benefits far outweight the cons.

You mention war crimes. Early in the War, Axis countries were quite indiscriminate against the civilian population, including terrible and sometimes unmentionable acts... and some of these countries even today refuse to acknowledge those atrocities... even with video proof.

Just a thought.

AKA_TAGERT
05-28-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won. LOL! What a smacktard!

Backdraft57
05-28-2006, 02:15 PM
Col Morgan passed away a year or two ago now. Also the movie was **** in the fact that the men of the real Memphis Belle didn't receive a dime from it.

JyD-Towndog
05-28-2006, 02:58 PM
S! That's a pretty good film...here's a photo of her with my daughter,wife and me from last year in Millington TN showing how they've got the old girl torn apart. Seems like there wasn't enough money in the budget to keep her in TN so they are shipping her to another state. (not for sure where she's headed)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/towndog/MemphisBelle2.jpg

WarWolfe_1
05-29-2006, 12:03 AM
It was a good movie, full of inaccurate stuff, but good none the less. Tuskogee Airmen from HBO was the same way.

Some time back I bought the first season of Black Sheep on DVD, 2 disk set with the origanl full length movie. Not historical in anyway but still great to watch, and besides it stars Robert Conrad, who could b!tch.

For a good historical movie (not a movie really) just pick up Band of Brothers, The Great Raid (Fairly new movie), or We Were Soldiers (Mel Gibson in Veitnam).

R988z
05-30-2006, 02:55 PM
The original film is available on google video, it's about 40 mins long so you might want to wait until you have some free time!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4587919299446103610

WTE_Galway
05-30-2006, 07:11 PM
Dark Blue World is probably my favourite modern WWII film but Memphis Belle is right up there.

Ginkasai
05-30-2006, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
It was a good movie, full of inaccurate stuff, but good none the less. Tuskogee Airmen from HBO was the same way.

Some time back I bought the first season of Black Sheep on DVD, 2 disk set with the origanl full length movie. Not historical in anyway but still great to watch, and besides it stars Robert Conrad, who could b!tch.

For a good historical movie (not a movie really) just pick up Band of Brothers, The Great Raid (Fairly new movie), or We Were Soldiers (Mel Gibson in Veitnam). I second The Great Raid. Almost made me cry when I watched it in theaters.

As for Memphis Belle; It was a great movie, despite the inaccuracies. I'm not going to let something like actual history stop me from watching a good movie. We all have to remember that it's Hollywood, not the History Channel.

mortoma1958
05-31-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won. Hmmmmm.....well let's see, the Germans bombed London. Accidentally at first but then they decided to wholeheartedly. Japanese would have bombed civilians if they could have.
Their balloon bombs were a feeble attempt to do so but several people, mostly children were killed by them. The U.S. was the country that
that was the least likely to bomb civilians, but they did a few times. A-bombs on Japan were an exception.

BadA1m
05-31-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won.

I used to believe in the boogeyman too.....

Unknown_Target
05-31-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won.

Not only is this post misinformed, bigoted, and completely wrong, but it's also just plain stupid.
Read up on history before you say things like this, and don't fall prey to the usual "OMG AMERICA SUX0RZ!!11" before you know the actual facts.

J_Weaver
05-31-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Unknown_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won.

Not only is this post misinformed, bigoted, and completely wrong, but it's also just plain stupid.
Read up on history before you say things like this, and don't fall prey to the usual "OMG AMERICA SUX0RZ!!11" before you know the actual facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone interested in the morality of the Allied bombing campaign should Read "Among the Dead Cities" by A.C. Grayling. I'm reading it now and so far its quite interesting.

MiamiEagle
06-02-2006, 12:45 AM
Yes it was a good movie. Unfortunualy it was not a big Box hit. I still love that movie. I highly recommend it.

Tora Tora was a great historical movie with plenty of Aviation in it. I also highly recommmend it.

The Battle of Britain in DVD is a must for Historical buffer like me.

Last but not least. I also recommend for you guys to see Midway with Henry Ford and other big stars in it. Its not as good as Tora Tora but a good movie never the less.

Miamieagle

Rammjaeger
06-02-2006, 06:13 AM
W. B. Yeats: An Irish Airman Foresees His Death (the poem recited in the movie - which was my favourite part):

http://www.web-books.com/classics/poetry/anthology/Yeats/Irish.htm

UberDemon
06-02-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Yes it was a good movie. Unfortunualy it was not a big Box hit. I still love that movie. I highly recommend it.

Tora Tora was a great historical movie with plenty of Aviation in it. I also highly recommmend it.

The Battle of Britain in DVD is a must for Historical buffer like me.

Last but not least. I also recommend for you guys to see Midway with Henry Ford and other big stars in it. Its not as good as Tora Tora but a good movie never the less.

Miamieagle

I agree. Tora! Tora! Tora! to this day is still one of the best WW2 movies made. The concept of a 2-crew movie (one US, one Japanese) is awesome. Midway is good to have but not as good, plus it uses some of the same footage as Tora (3x).

I'd also add some other good movies like Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and The Downfall. Band of Brothers is a great series as well. Dark Blue World is also a good movie, but it does fal into the love story part ... I hate to even try to compare it to that horrible movie called Pearl Harbor (my opinion)... but it always bugged me that in this day of CGI, why didn't they model the correct Bf-109 in Dark Blue World? They "modelled" the same type of planes that they "had" to use in Battle of Britain because in the late 60's and early 70's they did not have graphics like we have today - that is, the Spanish built 109's with the Spitfire-like nose... OK, the "modeled" that? Someone needs a refund in the production team of Dark Blue World... I am sure there is a model of an early 109 they could have bought the rights to use...

Sorry guys... I am having a bad morning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daytraders
06-03-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Yes it was a good movie. Unfortunualy it was not a big Box hit. I still love that movie. I highly recommend it.

Tora Tora was a great historical movie with plenty of Aviation in it. I also highly recommmend it.

The Battle of Britain in DVD is a must for Historical buffer like me.

Last but not least. I also recommend for you guys to see Midway with Henry Ford and other big stars in it. Its not as good as Tora Tora but a good movie never the less.

Miamieagle

they just released The Battle of Britain in DTS/5.1 and Widescreen 2.35:1 Anamorphic

Special Features

2 Discs
Audio commentary from director Guy Hamilton with Bernard Williams and Paul Annet
'Recollections Of An R.A.F Squadron Leader' featurette
'Authenticity In The Air' featurette
'A Film For The Few': a 'Making Of' featurette with Guy Hamilton, Michael Caine, Susannah York, Christopher Plummer and Bernard Williams
'Battle For The Battle Of Britain' documentary
'Images From The Sky' photo gallery
Theatrical trailer

great price 5.99 worth it just for the 'Battle For The Battle Of Britain' documentary.

HERE (http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/150567/Battle_Of_Britain_Special_Edition/Product.html)

zeno303
06-03-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Daytraders:

they just released The Battle of Britain in DTS/5.1 and Widescreen 2.35:1 Anamorphic...


Great news! My old DVD is letterbox but does not have 2.35:1 Anamorphic so it's just a skinny strip on my widescreen TV.

Thanks for the info. Now if I can just find "The Great Escape" in 2.35:1 Anamorphic.

Aimosika
06-08-2006, 04:55 PM
Now I am gettin depressed, I thought at least UberDemon knows the aviation history quite right. And can say really a word.

Yeah we Finns appreciated those 40 Brewsters US SOLD us but we very much disliked those 5000 airplanes you GAVE to russians to fight against us.

German bombings tonnage agaist civilian targets in ww2 compared to allies: 1:500. Hello world?

SeaFireLIV
06-08-2006, 06:13 PM
I quite liked the movie Memphis Belle, but was saddened to hear that the producer actually wanted to do a Lancaster British bomber version, but couldn`t cos he couldn`t get the cash and only the US had the money... and of course they wouldn`t part unless the film was about American bomber crews. Why we Brits gotta be so poor? Oh yea, cos we used up all our reserves holding back the Germans alone in BOB.



I`ll get my coat then....

WTE_Galway
06-08-2006, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by UberDemon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Yes it was a good movie. Unfortunualy it was not a big Box hit. I still love that movie. I highly recommend it.

Tora Tora was a great historical movie with plenty of Aviation in it. I also highly recommmend it.

The Battle of Britain in DVD is a must for Historical buffer like me.

Last but not least. I also recommend for you guys to see Midway with Henry Ford and other big stars in it. Its not as good as Tora Tora but a good movie never the less.

Miamieagle

I agree. Tora! Tora! Tora! to this day is still one of the best WW2 movies made. The concept of a 2-crew movie (one US, one Japanese) is awesome. Midway is good to have but not as good, plus it uses some of the same footage as Tora (3x).

I'd also add some other good movies like Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and The Downfall. Band of Brothers is a great series as well. Dark Blue World is also a good movie, but it does fal into the love story part ... I hate to even try to compare it to that horrible movie called Pearl Harbor (my opinion)... but it always bugged me that in this day of CGI, why didn't they model the correct Bf-109 in Dark Blue World? They "modelled" the same type of planes that they "had" to use in Battle of Britain because in the late 60's and early 70's they did not have graphics like we have today - that is, the Spanish built 109's with the Spitfire-like nose... OK, the "modeled" that? Someone needs a refund in the production team of Dark Blue World... I am sure there is a model of an early 109 they could have bought the rights to use...

Sorry guys... I am having a bad morning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually I am pretty sure the hispano merlin 109's in DBW are not models they are real.

Those shots are left over previously unused footage from the original Battle of Britain from the 70's.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I quite liked the movie Memphis Belle, but was saddened to hear that the producer actually wanted to do a Lancaster British bomber version, but couldn`t cos he couldn`t get the cash and only the US had the money... and of course they wouldn`t part unless the film was about American bomber crews. Why we Brits gotta be so poor? Oh yea, cos we used up all our reserves holding back the Germans alone in BOB. Let it go!

joeap
06-09-2006, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I quite liked the movie Memphis Belle, but was saddened to hear that the producer actually wanted to do a Lancaster British bomber version, but couldn`t cos he couldn`t get the cash and only the US had the money... and of course they wouldn`t part unless the film was about American bomber crews. Why we Brits gotta be so poor? Oh yea, cos we used up all our reserves holding back the Germans alone in BOB.



I`ll get my coat then....

Yea the Brits fought well, but you were not alone, you never were. Commonwealth ring a bell?

PLus I would say the strain of the whole war bankrupted the UK. Even with thw two big guys on your side.

UberDemon
06-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Now I am gettin depressed, I thought at least UberDemon knows the aviation history quite right. And can say really a word.

Yeah we Finns appreciated those 40 Brewsters US SOLD us but we very much disliked those 5000 airplanes you GAVE to russians to fight against us.

German bombings tonnage agaist civilian targets in ww2 compared to allies: 1:500. Hello world?

Aimosika... I have read and re-read my reply to your post. What part of my reply to your post are you in disagreement? Of course we may disagree, but I don't think I wrote anything terribly wrong.

I don't recall the USA selling you Brewsters at the same time the USA started providing Airacobras to the Soviets.

So there were 35 B-239s in the Finnish inventory on 2 July 1941... USA formally gets drawn into WW2 on 7 December 1941 (note the words "formally" and "drawn" - because AVG and other help are not formal participation, right?)... and P-39 deliveries to USSR get under way mid-1942... so there is about a year of some really bad things happening there. So it is not like the USA was selling/giving equip to both sides at the same time, right?

I don't think that anyone here debates the fact that the Finns were caught on a difficult dilemma. And they had to choose the best ally for their national purposes. In fact I only think highly of the efforts by the Finnish people on how they defended their sovereignty regardless of the odds. The Finns, for example, were masters of adaptation, and were successful at operating several different types of aircraft. Some other countries were hindered by having different equipment, an example being Romenia.

However, Finland = Axis at the time, and that is the way it went, it was nothing personal. So there was no love between USA or UK and USSR, but they were allies. War is not just war... It is politics as well. But the good news is that you don't need to like it. It doesn't mean it will change anything... but you still don't need to like it.

If you are implying that the 5000 P-39s the USA supplied to the USSR were used against Finland, you need to get a refund on whatever history book you are reading.

I double checked my figures with writings from Hans Werner Neulen, Kari Stenman, Kalevi Keskinen, and Dmitriy Loza. I figure somewhere amongst those words is the real truth... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

UberDemon
06-10-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UberDemon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Yes it was a good movie. Unfortunualy it was not a big Box hit. I still love that movie. I highly recommend it.

Tora Tora was a great historical movie with plenty of Aviation in it. I also highly recommmend it.

The Battle of Britain in DVD is a must for Historical buffer like me.

Last but not least. I also recommend for you guys to see Midway with Henry Ford and other big stars in it. Its not as good as Tora Tora but a good movie never the less.

Miamieagle

I agree. Tora! Tora! Tora! to this day is still one of the best WW2 movies made. The concept of a 2-crew movie (one US, one Japanese) is awesome. Midway is good to have but not as good, plus it uses some of the same footage as Tora (3x).

I'd also add some other good movies like Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and The Downfall. Band of Brothers is a great series as well. Dark Blue World is also a good movie, but it does fal into the love story part ... I hate to even try to compare it to that horrible movie called Pearl Harbor (my opinion)... but it always bugged me that in this day of CGI, why didn't they model the correct Bf-109 in Dark Blue World? They "modelled" the same type of planes that they "had" to use in Battle of Britain because in the late 60's and early 70's they did not have graphics like we have today - that is, the Spanish built 109's with the Spitfire-like nose... OK, the "modeled" that? Someone needs a refund in the production team of Dark Blue World... I am sure there is a model of an early 109 they could have bought the rights to use...

Sorry guys... I am having a bad morning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually I am pretty sure the hispano merlin 109's in DBW are not models they are real.

Those shots are left over previously unused footage from the original Battle of Britain from the 70's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I hate you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Really, just kidding... I watched that movie once under the influence of delicious Italian wine and cheese, and I admit it; it was the wine and cheese's fault that I did not notice those were real vs CGI... Well, I'll have to watch it again, with my wife, because she really liked it... but drinking something else, say some Hungarian Tokaj wine... that will set me straight. I will then post an extensive reply on it.

joeap
06-11-2006, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Aimosika:
Now I am gettin depressed, I thought at least UberDemon knows the aviation history quite right. And can say really a word.

Yeah we Finns appreciated those 40 Brewsters US SOLD us but we very much disliked those 5000 airplanes you GAVE to russians to fight against us.

German bombings tonnage agaist civilian targets in ww2 compared to allies: 1:500. Hello world?

First of all most of those 5000 planes were used against Germany. Second, if you must quote that stat about bombing how about this, deaths of civilians in Axis death concentration camps compared to Allied?????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

UberDemon
06-11-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by UberDemon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UberDemon:

I agree. Tora! Tora! Tora! to this day is still one of the best WW2 movies made. The concept of a 2-crew movie (one US, one Japanese) is awesome. Midway is good to have but not as good, plus it uses some of the same footage as Tora (3x).

I'd also add some other good movies like Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and The Downfall. Band of Brothers is a great series as well. Dark Blue World is also a good movie, but it does fal into the love story part ... I hate to even try to compare it to that horrible movie called Pearl Harbor (my opinion)... but it always bugged me that in this day of CGI, why didn't they model the correct Bf-109 in Dark Blue World? They "modelled" the same type of planes that they "had" to use in Battle of Britain because in the late 60's and early 70's they did not have graphics like we have today - that is, the Spanish built 109's with the Spitfire-like nose... OK, the "modeled" that? Someone needs a refund in the production team of Dark Blue World... I am sure there is a model of an early 109 they could have bought the rights to use...

Sorry guys... I am having a bad morning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually I am pretty sure the hispano merlin 109's in DBW are not models they are real.

Those shots are left over previously unused footage from the original Battle of Britain from the 70's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I hate you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Really, just kidding... I watched that movie once under the influence of delicious Italian wine and cheese, and I admit it; it was the wine and cheese's fault that I did not notice those were real vs CGI... Well, I'll have to watch it again, with my wife, because she really liked it... but drinking something else, say some Hungarian Tokaj wine... that will set me straight. I will then post an extensive reply on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched probably about 1/3rd of the movie last night... but fell asleep and today I was too busy watching the World Cup games today. I was happy for Mexico.

First scene I saw the Spanish 109s was a peel-off by 5 of them, and I saw 2 or more frontal shots showing a nose cannon and two guns on wings firing... that is cool and all but I figure if they are overlaying real footage (ie Spits) with CGI of He-111s... then why not the correct CGI of say, a Bf-109E-3? But regardless, the movie is good. Charming story, and it does not make me sick like that Pearl Harbor one...

I guess in the heat of battle the Czech pilot mistook that "fatter" German plane for a Junkers... cos after shooting the He-111 down he stated "One Junkers down". That is OK... "He-113s" were claimed by British and Soviets... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, since we are on the BoB topic, I was fortunate enough to see one of the CASA built He-111s used in the movie "Battle of Britain" in real life. Nice bird...

mazexx
06-12-2006, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimosika:
Yeah, story is total **** ('lets be careful not to bomb that hospital/kindergarten'). Why there allways be that nonsense hypocratism in US war moviens even everybody knows that those bomb raids were solely targeted against civilian people. But, alas, those things were warcrimes but the history is written by those won. Hmmmmm.....well let's see, the Germans bombed London. Accidentally at first but then they decided to wholeheartedly. Japanese would have bombed civilians if they could have.
Their balloon bombs were a feeble attempt to do so but several people, mostly children were killed by them. The U.S. was the country that
that was the least likely to bomb civilians, but they did a few times. A-bombs on Japan were an exception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the logic behind that has to be the same as the logic behind the death sentence (still used by third world nations and some other nations today!). The state says that you are not allowed kill people. If you do that, the state kills you... Ehh? A twelwe year old ought to understand the stupidity of that.

The civilian bombings during WW2 by all sides can never be justified, especially not by school yard rethorics like "you started it". Sure the US where not as bad as the brits or germans in some ways, but Japan was sure terrorbombed the same way as London during the blitz. There is no way to claim moral superiority doing the things you accuse your enemy of...

/Mazex

SeaFireLIV
06-12-2006, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by mazexx:


Well, the logic behind that has to be the same as the logic behind the death sentence (still used by third world nations and some other nations today!). The state says that you are not allowed kill people. If you do that, the state kills you... Ehh? A twelwe year old ought to understand the stupidity of that.

The civilian bombings during WW2 by all sides can never be justified, especially not by school yard rethorics like "you started it". Sure the US where not as bad as the brits or germans in some ways, but Japan was sure terrorbombed the same way as London during the blitz. There is no way to claim moral superiority doing the things you accuse your enemy of...

/Mazex


This is how it works.

You`re walking down the street minding your own business. Suddenly, a stranger jumps behind you and smaks you around the head with a crowbar. You fall to the ground. Your attacker keeps smacking you about until you`re bustied up and bloodied...

But somehow, you find the energy to block his blows and smack him one in the face. He staggers back-surprised, dropping the crowbar.

You pick up the crowbar and batter his face in to within an inch of his life. He`s in hospital for 6 months in critical condition. You`re in hospital for a few weeks and out again.


Who`s in the wrong?

This is war. If you make an unprovoked attack on someone, hurting them severely, you`d better paralyse them, cos if they get up expect RETALIATION - in fact expect a retaliation that will come with INTEREST.

joeap
06-12-2006, 08:27 AM
Well I agree with this post Seafire. Imagine what a Pole or Russian would say. Nasty all around.

mazexx
06-12-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:


Well, the logic behind that has to be the same as the logic behind the death sentence (still used by third world nations and some other nations today!). The state says that you are not allowed kill people. If you do that, the state kills you... Ehh? A twelwe year old ought to understand the stupidity of that.

The civilian bombings during WW2 by all sides can never be justified, especially not by school yard rethorics like "you started it". Sure the US where not as bad as the brits or germans in some ways, but Japan was sure terrorbombed the same way as London during the blitz. There is no way to claim moral superiority doing the things you accuse your enemy of...

/Mazex


This is how it works.

You`re walking down the street minding your own business. Suddenly, a stranger jumps behind you and smaks you around the head with a crowbar. You fall to the ground. Your attacker keeps smacking you about until you`re bustied up and bloodied...

But somehow, you find the energy to block his blows and smack him one in the face. He staggers back-surprised, dropping the crowbar.

You pick up the crowbar and batter his face in to within an inch of his life. He`s in hospital for 6 months in critical condition. You`re in hospital for a few weeks and out again.


Who`s in the wrong?

This is war. If you make an unprovoked attack on someone, hurting them severely, you`d better paralyse them, cos if they get up expect RETALIATION - in fact expect a retaliation that will come with INTEREST. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I read your stone age logics right that you feel that bombing civilians is OK if the other guy did it first? If someone kills your wife, are you then allowed to kill his innocent wife? Jeezzz....

/Mazex

SeaFireLIV
06-12-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by mazexx:


Did I read your stone age logics right that you feel that bombing civilians is OK if the other guy did it first? If someone kills your wife, are you then allowed to kill his innocent wife? Jeezzz....

/Mazex

No, I`d kill the guy who killed my wife.

OK, now the problem you have here is this:

What I wrote is an ANALOGY. The man is an innocent country retaliating to the stranger who`s the enemy country. So if the `wife` in my analogy is part of that country which attacked me then I guess she`d be in for it too (unless she clearly showed she wasn`t supporting the regime that attacked me). Analogy wise.

Also, you are so already decided in your opinion that you cannot see what i`m getting at. You probably have some other interest in this you`re not telling us about -relatives involved on the receiving end of Allied bombing maybe?

As sad as this stuff is, all i`m doing is coldly and logically telling you the way it is and how Humans act when a crime is committed against them and when their very existence hung in the balance.

It`s very easy to sit their all politically correct and say, "It`s wrong to hurt them cos they hurt you."

But that`s what`s going to happen, because people get angry. they get even angrier when attacked thru no fault of their own and that`s when you get retaliation against that country. I`m not saying it`s wonderful or good, but that`s what happens in war. This is one of the reasons why war is bad.

mazexx
06-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

OK, now the problem you have here is this:

What I wrote is an ANALOGY. The man is an innocent country retaliating to the stranger who`s the enemy country. So if the `wife` in my analogy is part of that country which attacked me then I guess she`d be in for it too (unless she clearly showed she wasn`t supporting the regime that attacked me). Analogy wise.


Na, you don't mean that? If you missed it mine was an analogy too. Your wife getting killed was innocent (read your civilian population), is it then right to kill the killers wife (the enemy nations civilians)? In my world I would sure get the crowbar (to mix the analogies) and kill the person who killed my wife - but I would never dream of the cowardly act of killing his wife as some kind of gangster retaliation. If I kill his wife I'm just as bad as he is... Thus, bombing Dresden can NEVER be justified by the fact that the germans bombed London. OK, the old saying "never argue with and idiot, he'll drag you down to his own level and beat you with experience..." may fit as some kind of analogy here - accept that the allies won, even though they whent down to the level of the germans (you can beat experience with numerical superiority http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Also, you are so already decided in your opinion that you cannot see what i`m getting at. You probably have some other interest in this you`re not telling us about -relatives involved on the receiving end of Allied bombing maybe?


Yes I have relatives killed by allied bombings during the war, and by strafing 109's...


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s very easy to sit their all politically correct and say, "It`s wrong to hurt them cos they hurt you."


Well, the wifes and children in Dresden and Yokohama never hurt anyone. It's fair and square to try to wipe out every german soldier to retaliate for the civilians killed during the blitz. But when you send your bombers loaded with incedary bombs over civilian suburbs something is very, very wrong in my world - and it can never be justified by the fact that "They started it mum!". If you consider yourself morally superior to your enemy, you do NOT commit the same crimes you accuse them of, and deliberately bombing civilians is a crime according to me. The soviet mass rapes in Eastern Germany can NEVER be justified by the fact that the germans did it first in Ukraine... It's the same logics - do think that it was right that they raped children and 80 year old women? Would it be OK to put all germans in concentration camps and exterminate them as they did that to the jews? The list goes on and on...

/Mazex

BfHeFwMe
06-13-2006, 01:19 AM
Geeze, don't they teach any history around your parts? Does the term 'total war' ring any bells in the belfrey? Civilians were never a specific target, the Axis nations were, and in their totality. Anything which moved, had military value, or any sort of function like transportation, communication, power, manufacture potential, and morale among the many. Unfortunatly these items don't all exist in the middle of no where.

These were also the most militarized modern societies ever seen up to that point. It wasn't that easy to draw a line distinguishing and seperating. Try to stop viewing 60+ years ago through your fast click satalite updates and information spamming overkill.

AKA_TAGERT
06-13-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Geeze, don't they teach any history around your parts? Does the term 'total war' ring any bells in the belfrey? Civilians were never a specific target, the Axis nations were, and in their totality. Anything which moved, had military value, or any sort of function like transportation, communication, power, manufacture potential, and morale among the many. Unfortunatly these items don't all exist in the middle of no where.

These were also the most militarized modern societies ever seen up to that point. It wasn't that easy to draw a line distinguishing and seperating. Try to stop viewing 60+ years ago through your fast click satalite updates and information spamming overkill. Bingo!

BSS_Goat
06-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is how it works.ect ect ect

This is war. If you make an unprovoked attack on someone, hurting them severely, you`d better paralyse them, cos if they get up expect RETALIATION - in fact expect a retaliation that will come with INTEREST.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

mazexx
06-13-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Geeze, don't they teach any history around your parts? Does the term 'total war' ring any bells in the belfrey? Civilians were never a specific target, the Axis nations were, and in their totality. Anything which moved, had military value, or any sort of function like transportation, communication, power, manufacture potential, and morale among the many. Unfortunatly these items don't all exist in the middle of no where.


"Civilians were never a specific target"? So you mean that the British night time bombings of central Hamburg and Dresden with incendiary bombs was not specifically targeting civilians - or Hiroshima? You really must have slept through a lot of history classes...

I find it very disturbing that a lot of people think that this statement is worth applause in the context of justifing DELIBERATE civilian mass murders like the bombings mentioned above. A certain corporal is famous for using the term "total war" regularly in his speaches and I wouldn't like to use his terminology while justifing civilian targeting. According to the logic above, the Al-qaida attack against WTC was perfectly valid from a moral stand point. They consider themselves in total war against the US so then attacks like that are OK? What is really the difference of bombing Dresden that was a well known refugee for women and children with no military targets to lining up civilians and shooting them in a forest outside Srebrenica. I guess they called it total war too...

/Mazex

mazexx
06-13-2006, 12:49 PM
As this thread is really about movies I'd like to get back to that topic. The movie "Come and see" (Idi i smotri) has some of the strongest scenes of all war movies I've seen - and they fit very much into the retaliation theme applauded here. The ending scnene where the main character is about to shot an unarmed german soldier in the face after they have rounded up a whole village and murdered them is simply breathtaking... Blazingly fast clips of nazi history going back to the innocent child Hitler once was... Who are you if you do the same thing as the monsters?

IMBB Link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/)

I guess the "total war" logics where you retaliate the same way as your enemy did fits better into the Rambo movies... "I didn't do first blood..." (so it was OK to kill heaps of national guard volounteers).

/Mazex

J_Weaver
06-13-2006, 02:07 PM
The question of morality of the Allied bombing campaign during WWII is not as simple as it may seem. The mind set of the peoples involved as well as the doctrine of the air forces involved must be studied also. If anyone is truely interested in the question at hand then they should spend the $26 need to buy "Among the Dead Cities" by A.C. Grayling. Its a good read and offers some interesting insights into this question. I can't tell you his conclusions as I'm still reading, but its worth the time.

BfHeFwMe
06-13-2006, 05:19 PM
Well, the logic behind that has to be the same as the logic behind the death sentence (still used by third world nations and some other nations today!). The state says that you are not allowed kill people. If you do that, the state kills you... Ehh? A twelwe year old ought to understand the stupidity of that.

/Mazex

I'll answer. as soon as you can explain this absurd philosophical premise. History teaches one thing, all power abhors a vacuum. If the legitimate state is unwilling to bear the sword, than who will, rest assured someone will every time, a proven track. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here's the real Memphis Belle story, original AAF footage in high quality if you have the bandwidth.

Belle (http://www.archive.org/details/TheMemphisBelleAStoryofaFlyingFortress)