PDA

View Full Version : Dambusters - The film is being remade...



Grue_
12-13-2005, 06:32 AM
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1662517,00.html

They're arguing about the dog already.

"With all the digital technology there is now, a new version could be even more exciting".

How can computer generated Lancs be more exciting that watching real footage of low flying Lancs in formation?

As long as they don't give it the Pearl Harbour treatment I'll go and watch it anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MrBlueSky1960
12-13-2005, 06:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Lets hope it does get made€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But don€t be surprised if we see a Yank in a leading role or Mel Gibson at the very least€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tom1502_158
12-13-2005, 06:54 AM
They'll probably use B-17's and have all American crews...Just thinking U-571, and Pearl Harbour...if it's made in the US I'm not interested.

Feathered_IV
12-13-2005, 06:54 AM
Maybe keep the name of the dog in. Its probably best to show the whole thing, warts and all methinks.

The.Tyke
12-13-2005, 07:00 AM
David Frost, the TV presenter is behind it so I think it extemely unlikely that anybody other than British/Canadian/Australian actors will feature in it. Don't forget that the real Dambusters did have an American pilot on the mission !

blairgowrie
12-13-2005, 07:01 AM
They will have to go some to beat the original flick. Some of the orginal footage with mossies dropping test bombs is classic. Don't see it being made in Hollywood.

ploughman
12-13-2005, 07:03 AM
Well there were Yanks and Skippies on the various aircrew, as well as Poms and Canucks and Kiwis, probably a Pole or two, who knows who else. It was quite the UN squadron.

So. Johnny Wilkinson as Mel Gibson, I mean Guy Gibson. Freddy Flintoff as the dog whose name is too terrible to say. Angelina Jolie as Barnes Wallis, 'ja, dey go bouncey, bounce, bounce und de dam iz kaput.' That's all the roles filled I think.

MEGILE
12-13-2005, 07:14 AM
NO CGI, NO NO NO NO!!! NEIN! NON! NYET!

Real lancs.. build a big a$$ damb, and blow the **** out of it.

ploughman
12-13-2005, 07:36 AM
B-17s. The Hoover dam. Some mood lighting. We got a movie baby.

mauld
12-13-2005, 07:44 AM
With the BBMF, the Canadian Lanc, and if the one at East Kirby UK which carries out high speed taxi runs could be made flyable with movie money that would do the trick. Wasn't the dogs name also the code word for a successful breach of the dams perhaps they will rewrite history and not breech the dams to be politacally correct.

Saunders1953
12-13-2005, 08:04 AM
I'm for keeping the dog's name as well--warts and all like Feathered IV says, but if need be, change it to "Niger" and be done with it.

It is going to be hard to beat the original, though. I like the B17/Hoover Dam angle!

blairgowrie
12-13-2005, 08:14 AM
Seems to me they should use the dog's original name. Also seems to me if they do, the movie might be banned from certain countries or picketed. Common sense will dictate. Niger, which is the Latin for black would be a suitable compromise.

luftluuver
12-13-2005, 08:17 AM
names of all those on the mission,
http://www.dambusters.org.uk/wave1.htm
http://www.dambusters.org.uk/

I read somewhere that that the Lancs flew at ~30' because 60' was not dramatic enough for the movie. Also it is said that the actors started and taxied the Lancs.

bazzaah2
12-13-2005, 08:38 AM
well, in accordance with the current argot, perhaps the dog in question will be called 'dog of colour'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
12-13-2005, 08:46 AM
Great news, I love any war films, the only one I really didnt like was Pearl Harbour and the CGI sequences, however brief, were worth watching it for.

I am sure they could do the whole film with just one flyable Lanc and make it look like a squadron using overlaying and effects.

Slickun
12-13-2005, 09:18 AM
Didn't the Brits use Lancs as the "Shackleton", a sub hunter, until recently? Any of those left?

It will be a cool movie if they can force themselves to leave out the love story.

RocketDog
12-13-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
It will be a cool movie if they can force themselves to leave out the love story.

There's nothing wrong with a man loving his dog.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

PS - When I used to live in Sheffield in the 80s, the pub sign hanging outside the Ladybower Inn was a Lancaster bomber. It turns out that the nearby Derwent Valley dams are very similar to the ones attacked in Germany and were used in practice for the mission. Some of the original film was also shot there.

Grue_
12-13-2005, 10:00 AM
Didn't the Brits use Lancs as the "Shackleton", a sub hunter, until recently? Any of those left?

Do you mean in a film or real life?

I real life, the Shackleton replaced the Lanc in 1951 and this was replaced by the Nimrod around 1970 I think.

ploughman
12-13-2005, 10:02 AM
I think the Shackleton had an AEW role until embarassingly recently.

Slickun
12-13-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Grue_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didn't the Brits use Lancs as the "Shackleton", a sub hunter, until recently? Any of those left?

Do you mean in a film or real life?

I real life, the Shackleton replaced the Lanc in 1951 and this was replaced by the Nimrod around 1970 I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. I thought the "Shackleton" was a name applied to the ASW version of the Lanc. 1951 was the year i was born. A LONG time ago.

Grue_
12-13-2005, 10:27 AM
You were right about the recent use of the Shackleton though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/line1990-99.html

"17 Apr 1991 - WL757, a Shackleton AEW Mk 2 of No 8 Squadron, made the type's final flight in RAF service bringing to a close 40 years of active service. The Squadron officially handed over AEW duties to the Sentry unit at Waddington with a transfer of command on 1 July."

VonShlagnoff
12-13-2005, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grue_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didn't the Brits use Lancs as the "Shackleton", a sub hunter, until recently? Any of those left?

Do you mean in a film or real life?

I real life, the Shackleton replaced the Lanc in 1951 and this was replaced by the Nimrod around 1970 I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. I thought the "Shackleton" was a name applied to the ASW version of the Lanc. 1951 was the year i was born. A LONG time ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No the Shack was a development of the Lincoln which was a development of the Lanc. The Shack's wing is lower in the fusselage than the Lanc and it has 4 Griffons driving contra rotating props. The Shak was used as an AEW platform until replaced by the E3 Sentry in the early nineties.

Slickun
12-13-2005, 10:34 AM
Hey, thanks, guys. Learn something new everyday!

luftluuver
12-13-2005, 11:01 AM
Shackleton
http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/shack/graphics/shack3.jpg
Lincoln
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/lincoln.jpg

Slickun
12-13-2005, 11:34 AM
One can see the family rezemblance.

dadada1
12-13-2005, 12:22 PM
No cheezy lovestory, no political correctness rubbish, no Americans playing Commonwealth parts, no changes to history, real Lancaster bombers, maybe you 've got a film, otherwise please don't waste your time.

Capt.England
12-13-2005, 12:36 PM
quick question.

How many engines did the shackleton have? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif (the version in the photo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

p1ngu666
12-13-2005, 01:03 PM
the potential of cg is very high, so doing other movies, even new ones would be good

Slickun
12-13-2005, 01:06 PM
How about American actors affecting Brit accents? Would that be OK?

WTE_Ibis
12-13-2005, 01:19 PM
Ben and Tom should do it.

.

dadada1
12-13-2005, 01:21 PM
We still know what is cgi and the real McCoy.
Woody Allen playing Barnes Wallace?

dadada1
12-13-2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Ben and Tom should do it.

.

What they both share the role of Gibson ?

Vortex_79
12-13-2005, 01:55 PM
~S~

There was a TV clip here in the UK a couple of days ago and they said that the film was going to be made here in the UK so that Hollywood doesn't re-write history again!

Here are a couple of pictures of the Mohne and Sorpe Dams I took earlier this year, shame I missed the Eder!

Mohne Dam
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/_79_Vortex/M1.jpg

Close up of the dam, you can actually see where it was rebuilt!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/_79_Vortex/M2.jpg

The Sorpe
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/_79_Vortex/S1.jpg

_79_Vortex

http://www.79vraf.com

Slickun
12-13-2005, 02:03 PM
Not to defend Hollywood in any way,

But...

How can anybody take ANYTHING Hollywood puts out and think its true to life?

That's just nutty. Griping about Hollywood getting facts wrong is like griping about...well, I can't think of a good analogy.

OK. It's like thinking that Space Mountain is really going to the moon or something.

CaptJodan
12-13-2005, 02:16 PM
In all fairness, they could bloody well try. I'm an American, and I hate to think how stupid my country is getting from watching movies like Pearl Harbor and U-571 on history because that's the only history they get.

Apollo 13 is about the closest to factual a movie as I can come up with made in recent-ish years. And it was pretty dang close, overall. A little licence taken with the hot tempers during parts of the flight, but otherwise pretty much true to form.

Why does history need to be dramatized more? There are happenings in real life that far exceed the tripe that Hollywood injects into a story. (For the love of God, no love story please)

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-13-2005, 02:19 PM
Spielberg is a big Dambusters fan....he'd do a good job.

bazzaah2
12-13-2005, 02:27 PM
beyond improved effects, I don't see how the film could be that much better than the original tbh.

If it's treated with accuracy and sympathy for the values and aims of the time then sure it will be entertaining, though that lovely lost reserve and understated emotion will be difficult to reproduce.

Still, can't beat a good bit of CGI! How on earth did they think they would breach the Sorpe though?

p1ngu666
12-13-2005, 02:45 PM
yes, no love story please.

film version of enemy coast ahead would be cool. i do remmber vaguly one line tho. "i never want to see iceicles hanging from my wifes nose again"

Aaron_GT
12-13-2005, 02:53 PM
But don€t be surprised if we see a Yank in a leading role or Mel Gibson at the very least€¦

Mel Gibson IS American!

blairgowrie
12-13-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But don€t be surprised if we see a Yank in a leading role or Mel Gibson at the very least€¦

Mel Gibson IS American! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think not. He is an Aussie last time I checked.

MEGILE
12-13-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But don€t be surprised if we see a Yank in a leading role or Mel Gibson at the very least€¦

Mel Gibson IS American! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think not. He is an Aussie last time I checked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then check harder dude... Mel Gibson is American.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-13-2005, 03:16 PM
Allow me, chaps...useful thing, Google.

http://www.melgibson.com/

"he was born in Peekskill, New York on January 3, 1956 and raised there till the age of twelve. He is the sixth of eleven children. The family then moved to Sydney because his father wanted to protect his boys from being drafted to serve in Vietnam."

bazzaah2
12-13-2005, 03:20 PM
aah lovely, panto season's here.

I don't think Mel Gibson would touch a remake of the Dambusters as it would show the English in a positive light.

I think Gibson was born in America but grew up in Australia.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-13-2005, 03:25 PM
617's best pilot was an Aussie.....might tempt him. He's knocking on a bit to be historically accurate - but then that's never worried him before.

Grue_
12-13-2005, 03:45 PM
Mel Gibson would probably portray Guy Gibson as a drunken wife beater or something. He hates the English for some reason.

Are there any personal accounts of what the Germans thought when they saw 10 ton bombs bouncing across the water towards them?

I've never seen any German account of the raid. Anyone got a link?

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-13-2005, 03:47 PM
I've got some German quotes...might take a while to dig 'em out and type 'em up. Stay tuned, don't think I've forgotten you if it takes a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The officially commissioned RAF history makes great use of Goebbels' diaries...surprisingly frank.

Slickun
12-13-2005, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptJodan:
In all fairness, they could bloody well try.

Why?

I'm with you, I oftentimes wonder why not report the truth...its often better than the tripe Hollywood puts out.

But nothing says they have to. Make money. bottom line.

blairgowrie
12-13-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But don€t be surprised if we see a Yank in a leading role or Mel Gibson at the very least€¦

Mel Gibson IS American! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think not. He is an Aussie last time I checked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then check harder dude... Mel Gibson is American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you think now DUDE?

Aussie or American?

Bo_Nidle
12-13-2005, 04:43 PM
I have said for some years that the film should be re-made.With the current CGI technology it wouldn't be hard to make computerised Lancasters convincing.

However if the politicaly correct "thought police" get their claws into it it will end up a travesty.

It MUST be told authentically to the era or not at all. Yes,in todays light, the labaradors name/mission success codeword is unacceptable but that was the word and reflected the way of life at the time so it must be used.

I have paul Brickhills book and if there is one scene I would like to see in it its the part where, enroute to the target one of the Lancs gets too low over the sea and actually strikes the water soaking the tailgunner who lit up the intercom with his subsequent swearing. I think it showed the duality of war in its humour and emphasising the dangers involved.

While the raid was not the resounding blow to the Nazi's it was initially portrayed to be it IS an outstanding example of courage and British engineering resourcefullness (is that a word?).

As for the actor to portray Gibson? As long as its not a Yank or an Aussie I don't care. No offence guys but Gibsons a Brit hero and should be portrayed by one.(As long as the Bond people don't pick him as the new Bond looks pants!!!)

MB_Avro_UK
12-13-2005, 04:58 PM
Hi all,

I agree with Slickun...to make the film viable in a world market it will HAVE to involve American pilots and crews and a degree of Brit Bashing.(And the Aussie,Canadian and New Zealand crews won't get a mention I bet).

That's market forces for you. The film U-571 stole a Royal Navy success.

'A Bridge too Far' showed Robert Redford capturing a bridge....this was done by a British soldier but Mr. Redford was needed to satisfy the American market.

The 'Pearl Harbour' film intruduced into the Battle of Britain American chaps showing us Brits how to fight? All for the good of Hollywood and it's sales.And the Eagle Squadron was not formed untl a year later!

I could go on and on....

Please do not accept this as an attack at our American members...but Hollywood really does let us Brits down again and again! Have you noticed that in Hollywood films thst the bad guy is often British?

I'm tempted to mention the film 'Independence Day' when British soldiers set fire to a church full of Americans! This never happened but as part of a 'Mel Gibson' production it was of course found fit to include.

Has the small British film industry been unfair on Hollywood?

BTW, Next year the British Government will finish 'Lend Lease' payments to the USA.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

ARCHIE_CALVERT
12-13-2005, 05:09 PM
BTW, Next year the British Government will finish 'Lend Lease' payments to the USA.

Good point... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Could it be the begining of the end of the beautiful friendship... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

berg417448
12-13-2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:



I'm tempted to mention the film 'Independence Day' when British soldiers set fire to a church full of Americans!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro


Funny...when I saw that movie it was about an attempted alien takeover of the Earth.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-13-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Have you noticed that in Hollywood films thst the bad guy is often British?


Too right!!

"Throw another child onto the fire, Lord Bastard!!"

The remake will be terrible but they could improve it by casting Brian Blessed as the dam.

MB_Avro_UK
12-13-2005, 06:41 PM
OK Berg...

Not 'Independence Day' but 'The Patriot'.Both were fictional works.'The Patriot' bombed in the UK but sales worldwide made it profitable.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

p1ngu666
12-13-2005, 07:10 PM
if oleg gives us the tools, theres no reason we couldnt make it, or a similer story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

plus no bloody love story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

u could have that really harsh comedian with the side parting, i forget his name. or mark thomashttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-13-2005, 08:39 PM
On the Shackleton... there is a flying one remaining. I've got some video.

nrmc
12-13-2005, 09:19 PM
why not use a real lanc they have one that they fly out of the canadian warplane museum in hamilton ontario canada. you can go up in it for $1000 cnd for a 45 min flight. It was flyin when i was up in a harvard.Almost all the planes they have are flyable and they do daily.

http://www.warplane.com/pages/aircraft.html

Enforcer572005
12-13-2005, 09:20 PM
MB Avro Uk ol pal.....The Nimegan (sp?) bridge the Robert Redfords company took WAS taken by a company of American paratroopers...Im pretty sure it was the 101st Abn div. They made a daylihght river crossing under fire and took the thing so that the British 30 corps could cross teh bridge and get to arnheim to relieve the brit paratroopers.

The american paras suffered over 50% casualites i believe taking that bridge. Wasnt that a European made movie with producers etc from Europe? I know it was made in europe.Its one of the best and most accurate war movies ever made. I thought the Brits were treated rather well in it, though Gen Browning and his poor judgement were a theme, but historically accurate.

You are right about hollywood and thier penchant for screwing up anythng historical. they dont actually have anything aganst the British, they just think that having american charcacters will sell more tickets in their main target audiance in America. Stupid, but true. U-571 made me sick. If they wanted to feature Americans,I dont know why thye couldnt just make a movie about the CVE task group that also captured a U-boat off Africa....a coasta guard cutter did the actually capture. These hollywood morons know nothing.

THe only time it gets done right is when somebdy like Tom Hanks does it and gets the facts correct....takes alot of research.

HunglikePony
12-13-2005, 09:38 PM
Dog should be called '*****h'

When dam go bust, radio call message should be 'Whats up mah *****h!' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Saunders1953
12-13-2005, 11:01 PM
Enforcer, it was the 504th PIR of the 82nd Airborne that took the Nimegen bridge by assault boat. And a truly heroic affair, to be sure. (Not to slight anyone else's deeds in the war, mind you.)

ploughman
12-14-2005, 02:20 AM
I remember watching a doco in which the guy who Redford portrayed described the assault. After sacrificing half his guys they took the bridge and the armour rolled over and...stopped. He said something along the lines of "those are your guys out there (six miles to Arnhem), aren't you going to get them?" And the tank company commander, who happened to become British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington many years later, said they had no infantry up as they were all fighting in the town and the tanks couldn't proceed as they'd get hammered by PAK. As it turned out the Germans actually had NOTHING covering those six miles and Carrington could have driven on to Arnhem and linked up with the British Airborne troops still holding out there. But he wasn't to know and doctrine is doctrine. I always wondered though, what if the Robert Redford character had told his guys to get on the tanks. What then? Would Carrington have gone?

WTE_Ibis
12-14-2005, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Ben and Tom should do it.

.

What they both share the role of Gibson ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
************************************************

No I don't think they could handle that,I was thinking more along the lines of them portraying
"Niger" You know dressed up in a doggy suit,Tom could play the front end and Ben the @ss end.


.

Feathered_IV
12-14-2005, 03:34 AM
Maybe a tragic, love-triangle between the snooty bombadier, his wife and the gritty mid upper gunner wouldn't be so bad. They could get shot down and captured. Then we could have more of that Pearl Harbour stuff like when the Japanese soldiers strap our two heroes to pieces of the True Cross and one of them takes a bullet to die for the sins of, ah never mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

BTW, my father (RIP) always said when he was stationed a Scampton aerodrome in the 60's, his bunk was famous as the one Cheshire VC used to sleep in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Strange eh?

ploughman
12-14-2005, 03:51 AM
Japanese soldiers? In Nevada? The Japanese never got anywhere near the Hoover Dam. Anyway, after Mel Gibson crashes his B-17 into the primary weapon of the alien city-ship just as its about to fire, all thirteen dams will be dust.

Xiolablu3
12-14-2005, 05:34 AM
Did you guys know the Dambusters was the inspiration for the trench run in Star Wars?

DoubleTap2005A
12-14-2005, 05:39 AM
Lots of interesting comments here. Great conversation. Trying to resist rant...Failing...

"Please do not accept this as an attack at our American members...but Hollywood really does let us Brits down again and again! Have you noticed that in Hollywood films thst the bad guy is often British?"

No apologies needed, as I do not consider it an attack on Americans, but on Hollywood, which has some of the stupidest Yanks we have in the country. They completely do not appreciate what their own countrymen want to see because too many of them are a bunch of elitist twits.

Brits have a right to be pissed about their treatment in films in recent years. I was particularly irritated and embarassed by portrayal of the Brits in "The Patriot". I was looking forward to the film because a) I like Gibson as an actor, b) there are almost never films about the American Revolution made (another beef I have with Hollywood).

I have no problem with portraying the Brits as the enemy then (sorry guys, you were), but portraying them as the equivalent of Nazi stormtroopers was freakin' ridiculous. From what I read, the historical figure on which the British cavalry commander was brutal, but I find it hard to believe he burned down a church with a bunch of people inside. No, not hard to believe, but idiotic and vulgar. If someone has some historical info to contradict me, go ahead.

The "U-571" film was an example of how some of Hollywood thinks the masses are dim-witted fools. They think that Americans can't relate to a movie in which Americans are not the stars or protagonists. Hey, Bon Jovi can't speak with a convincing British accent, and come to think of it neither can Matthew Mcwhatshisface, but we need them in the film. Make 'em all Americans.

Besides, WHO would pay to see a movie about a bunch of characters in a sub who aren't American?

(Das Boot? Hunt for Red October?)

Pearl Harbor? Dude, don't plead special grievance here for Brits. That movie was an abortion and an affront to anyone from that era, except maybe the Japanese. I was never so disappointed in a movie in my life (oh, wait, those latest Lucas films). The trailer was one of the BEST for a movie I have ever seen, and the movie was one of the worst I have even seen. Talk about a big tease.

I think Brits should not be as cranky about Americans playing Brits, as there are increasing numbers of Brits playing American roles. Its why they call it acting. But the historical fudgery is certainly something which is both unnecessary and understandably galling.

I have no doubt in my mind that had you made "U-571" as a British war story, it would have done just as well. Maybe you would have gotten a GOOD American actor for one of the British roles for domestic name recognition (although alot of British actors are well known here anyway).

What I was thinking the other day is that there SHOULD be a new Battle of Britain movie, one which could take advantage of CGI to create some really unbelievable combat footage. Give a sense of what was accomplished, against what odds and with what sacrifice.

It could bring together actors from alot of countries to represent the diversity of the pilots. But, primarily it would be a British tale because IT WAS THE FREAKIN' BATTLE OF BRITAIN and as an American I have no trouble identifying with the bravery and heroism of people who fought fascism before we got into it.

Funny thing, Americans are alot more complex and intelligent than Hollywood gives us credit for; imagine that.

Grrrrrrr http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Oh, and Ben Affleck sucks. Period.

Feathered_IV
12-14-2005, 05:48 AM
What I was thinking the other day is that there SHOULD be a new Battle of Britain movie

Wasn't there that Tom Cruise as Billy Fiske BoB movie planned? I imagine it would be fairly unconvincing though. Cruise is almost twenty years too old for the role.

MEGILE
12-14-2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by HunglikePony:
Dog should be called '*****h'

When dam go bust, radio call message should be 'Whats up mah *****h!' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

dadada1
12-14-2005, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Not to defend Hollywood in any way,

But...

How can anybody take ANYTHING Hollywood puts out and think its true to life?

That's just nutty. Griping about Hollywood getting facts wrong is like griping about...well, I can't think of a good analogy.

OK. It's like thinking that Space Mountain is really going to the moon or something.

People do take what Hollywood puts out as true life, we don't all take the trouble separate fact from fiction. I think you are probably refering to anyone who visits these boards. Its either our interest or our age means we would be able to tell what is fact and what is fiction. My house mate is half my age(26)and she would probably struggle to tell you when the second world war began and ended. She would be able to tell you the names of each member of "Girls Allowed". This is your average movie goer. It's not just the girls either, when I was studying for my degree (Age 37) the boys where just as well informed. Thats why distorting the facts in films such as U571 is both crass, cynical, and disrespectful. Filmakers should have responsibilities other than to their Execs and investors, espescially when it comes to historical subjects where people had to make sacrifices.

nakamura_kenji
12-14-2005, 06:04 AM
was there no anti ship version bouncey bomb?
seem remember rocket version give better range think, sure was video think

DoubleTap2005A
12-14-2005, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by dadada1:
Filmakers should have responsibilities other than to their Execs and investors, espescially when it comes to historical subjects where people had to make sacrifices.

I agree with you for the most part, but not not entirely. Many filmakers are NOT paying attention to their Execs and investors, and that is a big reason why box office receipts overall are down. They make movies which are pointless, insulting, or just plain bad.

Some filmakers make historically inaccurate films simply because of agendas or ideology or personal animus to whatever.

It IS too much to expect filmakers to make accurate films, because they are not obligated to do so. But for them, or anyone, to think that a great deal of the audience does not notice is a mistake. People notice and stay away, or they tell others, "Don't bother."

woofiedog
12-14-2005, 06:50 AM
Lancasters continued to serve with Britain's Royal Air Force after the war, primarily as a maritime reconnaissance aircraft for Coastal Command. Bomber Command squadrons continued to use the Lancasters until 1953 and other RAF Lancs continued to serve until 1964 undertaking a variety of non-combat roles such as photographic reconnaissance duties in Africa.

Quote... Budd Davisson, EAA/Sport Aviation, December, 1997. Amazingly enough, Amjet's Shackleton had been on line flying maritime patrols as late as 1991!

http://www.geocities.com/lucktam/awacs/jpgs/shack4.jpg

HISTORY

The "Shackleton" was a development of the Lincoln. Three M.R.1 prototype aircraft were built, the first flight was on the 9th of March 1949 (VW126). The first production aircraft (VP254) flew on the 24th of Oct 1954. The Shackleton M.R.1 entered service in April 1951 with 120 Squadron at Kinloss. Seventy seven MR1 and MR1A aircraft were built, with production ending in July 1952. MR1 aircraft were later modified for training and designated T.4. Shackleton M.R.2's introduced a streamlined fuselage, a retractable radome at the rear and a nose turret for two cannons. The prototype M.R.2 first flew on the 17th of June 1952, entering service with 42 squadron in Jan 1953 at St. Eval. Seventy M.R. 2's were delivered to the R.A.F. In September 1955 the Shackleton M.R.3 (WR970), made it's maiden flight. Superficially similar to it's predecessors, the M.R.3 was in fact considerably different. The tricycle undercarriage design of the M.R.3 was more in line with modern aircraft. It had additional fuel capacity in tip tanks, the cockpit was redesigned as a frameless clear canopy and the aircraft was partially soundproofed. Thirty four M.R.3.'s were delivered to the R.A.F. A small number were sold to the South African Air Force. A number of improvements were made to both M.R.2 and M.R.3 marks, the final re-fit being to "Phase 3" standard. This refurbished the aircraft interior and added an additional sonics position as well numerous other improvements in equipment and decor. Soon after the first MK 3 aircraft were returned to the squadrons another major change was made to the M.R.3 with a Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet being added, one to each outboard nacelle. This change was incorporated in those MR3's undergoing Phase 3 refits. Maritime versions of Shackletons were steadily withdrawn from service during 1970/71. The M.R.2 was refurbished and refitted in the Airborne Early Warning role with the APS 20F radar from the R.N. Gannet A.E.W.3. Only 8 squadron, formed at Kinloss in Jan 1972 were equipped with this variant and with the A.E.W. Nimrod version cancelled, were destined to carry on flying well into the 1990's.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
was there no anti ship version bouncey bomb?
seem remember rocket version give better range think, sure was video think

There was an anti-ship version developed. Codenamed 'Highball' it was intended for use by a special unit of DH Mosquitos in the Pacific, and was spherical in shape. Two could be carried in the "Timber Terror", but the war ended before it could be used.

Saunders1953
12-14-2005, 07:58 AM
Besides, WHO would pay to see a movie about a bunch of characters in a sub who aren't American?

(Das Boot? Hunt for Red October?)

Testify, Double-Tap! Good lord, it's a wonder that Lawrence of Arabia, Zulu, Young Winston, The Man Who Would Be King (Probably the most perfect movie ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) and the Bond movies ever get made!

DoubleTap2005A
12-14-2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Saunders1953:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Besides, WHO would pay to see a movie about a bunch of characters in a sub who aren't American?

(Das Boot? Hunt for Red October?)

Testify, Double-Tap! Good lord, it's a wonder that Lawrence of Arabia, Zulu, Young Winston, The Man Who Would Be King (Probably the most perfect movie ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) and the Bond movies ever get made! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"ZULU!" My father has loved "Zulu!" ever since it came out and still rates it as a classic. Funny, considering it does not have any Americans in it.

The Bond movies are an excellent point. Wow, Americans have been watching those movies for decades. Don't they realize James is a Brit? Maybe we think he's got a strange Boston accent.

Alright, I am getting cranky about this, so let me be positive. Here's just a few things an American movie goer/television watcher would like to see about furr-enors:

-A "Band of Brothers" style mini-series focusing on British and Soviet Soldiers
-The previously mentioned "Battle of Britain" film. Could be a mini-series as well
-Film based on the "Gates of Fire", battle of Thermopylae
-Film based on the Mamluks' defeat of the Mongols

Ben Affleck should not appear in any of these, unless he dies within the opening five minutes in some sort of horrible way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Saunders1953
12-14-2005, 09:43 AM
-Film based on the "Gates of Fire", battle of Thermopylae

Man, Bro, we are on the same page! And listen to your Father--he is obviously an exceptionally bright man!

Oh, and I'm an 'Merricun.

berg417448
12-14-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:




I have no problem with portraying the Brits as the enemy then (sorry guys, you were), but portraying them as the equivalent of Nazi stormtroopers was freakin' ridiculous. From what I read, the historical figure on which the British cavalry commander was brutal, but I find it hard to believe he burned down a church with a bunch of people inside. No, not hard to believe, but idiotic and vulgar. If someone has some historical info to contradict me, go ahead.






The church burning did not happen as portrayed in the movie. It was common for Tarleton's troops to burn churches, houses, crops, etc in that war...but no one was in them when he did so. In one case the body of a deceased American general was dug up from his grave before his estate was torched.

There was, however, one documented incident in which troops under the command of a British officer named Simcoe mutilated American wounded and burned some of them alive on a straw pile. What the screenwriters obviously did was combine a couple of different events into one for the movie solely for dramatic effect. As noted by others above...Hollywood has no concern for actual history.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
It was common for Tarleton's troops to burn churches, houses, crops, etc in that war...

I'm afraid that's what happens when you listen to Dimmu Borgir

DoubleTap2005A
12-14-2005, 10:37 AM
There was, however, one documented incident in which troops under the command of a British officer named Simcoe mutilated American wounded and burned some of them alive on a straw pile. What the screenwriters obviously did was combine a couple of different events into one for the movie solely for dramatic effect. As noted by others above...Hollywood has no concern for actual history.

Okay, important point. I understand the need to condense some events and even characters to tell a story, particularly in a movie length narration. Sometimes it has to be done, and people should understand that. I do.

However, when it is done honestly, an author TELLS people they have done it, and they retain the actual essence of the event. Doing otherwise, you are trying to really change history.

If what you read was accurate, then the movie depicted the brutalization of the American soldiers in an accurate way. As I recall, the calvary officer orders the wounded to be bayoneted, and the house burned? Fair enough. Gruesome stuff, and should have been sufficient to show the brutality, dramatically and historically.

But, burning of churches is one (bad) thing, but leaving people, particularly civilians, in them while you do it is entering a whole new black hole of evil. It was over the top and a cheap vehicle for trying to get the audience really, REALLY pissed (as well as Mel's oldest son) at the calvary officer. It was also not accurate historically, besides a cheap emotional device. Terrible things like that were done throughout history, but if the Brits did not do it during the Revolution, it should not be in the movie.

That another part of what annoyed me about the movie. Instead digging deeper into the reasons for the Revolution (and there were good ones) it kinda devolved into a revenge flick. Don't mistake me; I like revenge flicks, but the American Revolution was about a number of ideals which got drowned out by some of the over the top scenes.

ploughman
12-14-2005, 10:51 AM
Do you remember the English guy on some thread who said he watched The Patriot in rural cinema in Kentucky and at the end of he just crawled out of the theatre.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
It was over the top and a cheap vehicle for trying to get the audience really, REALLY pissed


Just like the bit in enemy At The Gates where the German sniper hangs the kid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's like halfway through the producers thought 'let's make him really REALLY evil' and just randomly threw that bit in without any kind of narrative buildup or anything

Bo_Nidle
12-14-2005, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Did you guys know the Dambusters was the inspiration for the trench run in Star Wars?

I actually DID know that as I was a major fan of the original Star Wars and queued with friends to see it when it opened on July 5th 1977 at 2pm at the Gaumont as it was then known in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire,UK.I queued for two bloody hours and about thirty people turned up!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Mind you the evening shows were sold out!(Yes I am old! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

Anyway the parts of the final attack in question were when the X-wing leader states he's going across to draw their fire as Gibson did, and an almost exact quote directly lifted from the "Dambusters" was "How many guns do you think Red 2?(Number may be wrong). Reply:"I'd say about twenty guns,some on the surface(dam),some in the towers(fields)" the words in brackets are from the original film.

I think I should get out more!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

When I was in the RAF Police I was stationed at the Dambusters sister station RAF Waddington.During my time I visited RAF Scampton, from where the raid was launched, several times.The grave of Gibsons dog is in front of one of the hangers and still cared for as part of RAF tradition.In fact 617 squadron were still in residence as they were then a Vulcan Squadron and their squadron Crest featured a stylised bursting dam. http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h_images/617sqncrst.gif

That was in the early 1980's (I told you I was old!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

They are now a Tornado squadron and hopefully not even Blairs junta will be able to do away with them.

The story of the Dambusters is a true account of ingenuity and raw courage and any attempt to portray it with a modern politically correct slant wil be nothing short of an insult to the men involved.

I truly hope and pray they get it right!!!!

MB_Avro_UK
12-14-2005, 05:01 PM
Hi all,

I'm not an expert on this (ducks for cover). But most of the British soldiers in the American war of Independence were American? And what was defined as American or British at that time?

Sorry to throw an ignorant spanner into the discussion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Any repies from our cousins across the pond would be very welcome,

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

berg417448
12-14-2005, 05:13 PM
€œIn 1775, Great Britain had a worldwide standing army of somewhere around 50,000 men. An additional 30,000 German mercenaries (popularly known as Hessians) were hired by the British over the course of the war. Fewer than 20,000 of these ever set foot in America. The war was far from Britain's greatest concern at the time. Loyalists€"American colonists who sided with the British€"fielded perhaps 50,000 men during the war years. However, according to reliable modern estimates, total British strength in the colonies did not exceed 20,000 men at any one time.€

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-revolutionary-war

Xiolablu3
12-14-2005, 07:11 PM
I went to see Return of the Jedi when I was 10, too young to see Star Wars, I remember that Star Wars got slated in reviews at the time like The Phantom Menace is today. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Funny all this discussion about the 'terrible' British in America. If the British were the occupying power, doesnt that make the rebels, terrorists? (Or freedom fighters?)

Much like the Americans are the occupying power in Iraq, and the rebels who fight back are terrorists? (Or freedom fighters?)

After all, when the Americans celebrate independance day, they are celebrating the fact that a bunch of farmers didnt want to pay their taxes and turned against the authorities! (terrorists or freedom fighters?)

reverendkrv1972
12-14-2005, 07:29 PM
I think it would be great to see an ACCURATE re-make of the dambusters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

speaking of British being portrayed as nasty...how about the Orc's in LOTR's?

they all speak with a london accent. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Professor_06
12-14-2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Lots of interesting comments here. Great conversation. Trying to resist rant...Failing...

"Please do not accept this as an attack at our American members...but Hollywood really does let us Brits down again and again! Have you noticed that in Hollywood films thst the bad guy is often British?"

No apologies needed, as I do not consider it an attack on Americans, but on Hollywood, which has some of the stupidest Yanks we have in the country. They completely do not appreciate what their own countrymen want to see because too many of them are a bunch of elitist twits.

Brits have a right to be pissed about their treatment in films in recent years. I was particularly irritated and embarassed by portrayal of the Brits in "The Patriot". I was looking forward to the film because a) I like Gibson as an actor, b) there are almost never films about the American Revolution made (another beef I have with Hollywood).

I have no problem with portraying the Brits as the enemy then (sorry guys, you were), but portraying them as the equivalent of Nazi stormtroopers was freakin' ridiculous. From what I read, the historical figure on which the British cavalry commander was brutal, but I find it hard to believe he burned down a church with a bunch of people inside. No, not hard to believe, but idiotic and vulgar. If someone has some historical info to contradict me, go ahead.

The "U-571" film was an example of how some of Hollywood thinks the masses are dim-witted fools. They think that Americans can't relate to a movie in which Americans are not the stars or protagonists. Hey, Bon Jovi can't speak with a convincing British accent, and come to think of it neither can Matthew Mcwhatshisface, but we need them in the film. Make 'em all Americans.

Besides, WHO would pay to see a movie about a bunch of characters in a sub who aren't American?

(Das Boot? Hunt for Red October?)

Pearl Harbor? Dude, don't plead special grievance here for Brits. That movie was an abortion and an affront to anyone from that era, except maybe the Japanese. I was never so disappointed in a movie in my life (oh, wait, those latest Lucas films). The trailer was one of the BEST for a movie I have ever seen, and the movie was one of the worst I have even seen. Talk about a big tease.

I think Brits should not be as cranky about Americans playing Brits, as there are increasing numbers of Brits playing American roles. Its why they call it acting. But the historical fudgery is certainly something which is both unnecessary and understandably galling.

I have no doubt in my mind that had you made "U-571" as a British war story, it would have done just as well. Maybe you would have gotten a GOOD American actor for one of the British roles for domestic name recognition (although alot of British actors are well known here anyway).

What I was thinking the other day is that there SHOULD be a new Battle of Britain movie, one which could take advantage of CGI to create some really unbelievable combat footage. Give a sense of what was accomplished, against what odds and with what sacrifice.

It could bring together actors from alot of countries to represent the diversity of the pilots. But, primarily it would be a British tale because IT WAS THE FREAKIN' BATTLE OF BRITAIN and as an American I have no trouble identifying with the bravery and heroism of people who fought fascism before we got into it.

Funny thing, Americans are alot more complex and intelligent than Hollywood gives us credit for; imagine that.

Grrrrrrr http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Oh, and Ben Affleck sucks. Period.

Maybe too much coffee?

Not defending hollywood (like they need it...bad). After all they give us great movies about gay cowboys which, of course, we all want to see.

But as I remember; The british did burn our White house and Capitol. Some things the terrorist didnt quite do.

(Aug. 1814) "British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. ""

Regarding the Revolutionary War, I imagine British history books portray the British Soldiers as benevolant caretakers over the uncivilized colonalist. Anyway, I am glad the Brits are allies of the USA....You guys (Brits)can be quite nasty when mad.

Hawgdog
12-14-2005, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:

"With all the digital technology there is now, a new version could be even more exciting".

How can computer generated Lancs be more exciting that watching real footage of low flying Lancs in formation?


Ha! I just watched the movie a couple of weeks ago, ala Netflix! Kinda boring in parts but overall a cool movie.(original)

ploughman
12-15-2005, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Lots of interesting comments here. Great conversation. Trying to resist rant...Failing...

"Please do not accept this as an attack at our American members...but Hollywood really does let us Brits down again and again! Have you noticed that in Hollywood films thst the bad guy is often British?"

No apologies needed, as I do not consider it an attack on Americans, but on Hollywood, which has some of the stupidest Yanks we have in the country. They completely do not appreciate what their own countrymen want to see because too many of them are a bunch of elitist twits.

Brits have a right to be pissed about their treatment in films in recent years. I was particularly irritated and embarassed by portrayal of the Brits in "The Patriot". I was looking forward to the film because a) I like Gibson as an actor, b) there are almost never films about the American Revolution made (another beef I have with Hollywood).

I have no problem with portraying the Brits as the enemy then (sorry guys, you were), but portraying them as the equivalent of Nazi stormtroopers was freakin' ridiculous. From what I read, the historical figure on which the British cavalry commander was brutal, but I find it hard to believe he burned down a church with a bunch of people inside. No, not hard to believe, but idiotic and vulgar. If someone has some historical info to contradict me, go ahead.

The "U-571" film was an example of how some of Hollywood thinks the masses are dim-witted fools. They think that Americans can't relate to a movie in which Americans are not the stars or protagonists. Hey, Bon Jovi can't speak with a convincing British accent, and come to think of it neither can Matthew Mcwhatshisface, but we need them in the film. Make 'em all Americans.

Besides, WHO would pay to see a movie about a bunch of characters in a sub who aren't American?

(Das Boot? Hunt for Red October?)

Pearl Harbor? Dude, don't plead special grievance here for Brits. That movie was an abortion and an affront to anyone from that era, except maybe the Japanese. I was never so disappointed in a movie in my life (oh, wait, those latest Lucas films). The trailer was one of the BEST for a movie I have ever seen, and the movie was one of the worst I have even seen. Talk about a big tease.

I think Brits should not be as cranky about Americans playing Brits, as there are increasing numbers of Brits playing American roles. Its why they call it acting. But the historical fudgery is certainly something which is both unnecessary and understandably galling.

I have no doubt in my mind that had you made "U-571" as a British war story, it would have done just as well. Maybe you would have gotten a GOOD American actor for one of the British roles for domestic name recognition (although alot of British actors are well known here anyway).

What I was thinking the other day is that there SHOULD be a new Battle of Britain movie, one which could take advantage of CGI to create some really unbelievable combat footage. Give a sense of what was accomplished, against what odds and with what sacrifice.

It could bring together actors from alot of countries to represent the diversity of the pilots. But, primarily it would be a British tale because IT WAS THE FREAKIN' BATTLE OF BRITAIN and as an American I have no trouble identifying with the bravery and heroism of people who fought fascism before we got into it.

Funny thing, Americans are alot more complex and intelligent than Hollywood gives us credit for; imagine that.

Grrrrrrr http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Oh, and Ben Affleck sucks. Period.

Maybe too much coffee?

Not defending hollywood (like they need it...bad). After all they give us great movies about gay cowboys which, of course, we all want to see.

But as I remember; The british did burn our White house and Capitol. Some things the terrorist didnt quite do.

(Aug. 1814) "British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. ""

Regarding the Revolutionary War, I imagine British history books portray the British Soldiers as benevolant caretakers over the uncivilized colonalist. Anyway, I am glad the Brits are allies of the USA....You guys (Brits)can be quite nasty when mad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er...'kay. So now we're being compared to Al Qaeda? I don't think I'll nibble on that hook.

An interesting anecdote from that action was that the Commandant of the US Marine's house was spared. A nod of familial respect from one set of marines to another.

WTE_Ibis
12-15-2005, 02:00 AM
Well I was kinda hoping you would as I have a six pack and a pizza and was hoping for some entertainment.
Go on 'av a go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

.

DoubleTap2005A
12-15-2005, 03:43 AM
But as I remember; The british did burn our White house and Capitol. Some things the terrorist didnt quite do.

(Sigh)

No, the terrorists just attacked a several civilian targets, full of thousand of civilians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And, the terrorists WERE aiming to destroy the white house and capitol anyway. The Pentagon just turned out to be a large enough target to spot and hit.

Look, with all due respect, there was a war going on when the Brits burned down the White House and Capitol. Buildings do not tend to do well in wartime. Sure, it was a big FU to us, but it was not terrorism. Had they stuffed a bunch of civilians into both, and THEN torched them, maybe you would have a point.

Let's be careful when we start throwing around such loaded terms, shall we?

Sorry if I sound a bit peevish, but calling the Brits terrorists is both a insult to them and the truth, and gives some sort respectibility to the terrorists which they do not deserve.

DoubleTap2005A
12-15-2005, 03:43 AM
"Funny all this discussion about the 'terrible' British in America."

Actually, the discussion was more about how the British were NOT as terrible as was being depicted in some media...


"If the British were the occupying power, doesnt that make the rebels, terrorists? (Or freedom fighters?)"

Uh, no, it does not. There are reasons why there are two different words, "rebels" and "terrorists". Maybe you should look them up.


"Much like the Americans are the occupying power in Iraq, and the rebels who fight back are terrorists? (Or freedom fighters?)"

Ahhh, I see where this is going mate. Little angry that no hot chicks showed up at your latest "rally". Sad that...


"After all, when the Americans celebrate independance day, they are celebrating the fact that a bunch of farmers didnt want to pay their taxes and turned against the authorities! (terrorists or freedom fighters?)

Wow, your grasp of logic and the english language is clearly only surpassed by your astute comprehension of the complexities of history. Impressive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

John_Pimlott
12-15-2005, 06:44 AM
With consideration to all that has been said above, I cherish the special U.S/U.K. relationship that we enjoy today. As people, we have a lot more similarities than differences.
I really couldn't care less where the film is made and who plays who. I just hope for a well acted, faithful portrayal of the events as they happened. Johnny Depp speaks in a fair British accent, Mike Myers too, and Londoner, Damien Lewis held his own as Lt. Winters in "Band Of Brothers" I thought.
Best wishes to all.
John Pimlott

DoubleTap2005A
12-15-2005, 07:11 AM
...and Londoner, Damien Lewis held his own as Lt. Winters in "Band Of Brothers" I thought.


He more than held his own. He was excellent. Superb.

Sturm_Williger
12-15-2005, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
Not defending hollywood (like they need it...bad). After all they give us great movies about gay cowboys which, of course, we all want to see.

You mean Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man" with Johnny Depp ? Iggy Pop as a gay cowboy ! It's a must-see ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ploughman
12-15-2005, 12:40 PM
What's this about then?

http://www.mblsisinfo.it/immagini/hase48/ha4809465.jpg

berg417448
12-15-2005, 12:48 PM
"In May 1947, Attack Squadron TWENTY ABLE transitioned to the AD-1 Skyraider. The squadron served in the Korean War while embarked on USS PRINCETON. On 2 May 1951, the squadron€s Skyraiders, making precise low level runs, delivered aerial torpedoes on the heavily defended and strategically positioned Hwa Chon Dam in North Korea. Destruction of the dam had been attempted by Air Force and Navy bombers but was finally accomplished by Attack Squadron TWENTY ABLE, earning them the nickname Dambusters."

https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history.htm

ploughman
12-15-2005, 12:51 PM
Darn, darn google.

woofiedog
12-15-2005, 01:00 PM
A bit of History of Fighting Squadron Twenty during WW2.

http://www.cv6.org/images/ag_lib/vf20-p.jpg

VF-20 Squadron History

History of Fighting Twenty
by Bayard Roberts
Commissioning And Training
On 15 October 1943, Fighting Squadron Twenty, a unit of CV Air Group Twenty, was formally commissioned at U. S. Naval Air Station, San Diego, Calif. Ceremony was dispensed with and preparations were made for an immediate commencement of training.


VF-20 Insignia, courtesy Enterprise CV-6 Association.
On board for the inauguration of activities were the following officers:

Lt. Comdr. Frederick E. Bakutis, USN
Lt. Edwin L. Pierce, USN
Lt. (jg) Robert I. Diller, A-V(S), USNR
Lt. (jg) Edward E. Schnell, USN
After a short period devoted largely to receiving personnel and establishing a tentative administrative and operational organization, the squadron's first aircraft, an F6F-3, was received and commissioned for the squadron by Carrier Aircraft Service Unit Five. Due to the fact that many of the pilots had specialized in types of aircraft other than fighters, an intensive period of ground instruction and cockpit check-outs was deemed necessary, and there was little flying. All but six of the junior officers reporting to this squadron had no time in the F6F type fighter. Most of them had received operational training in SBD's or pre-operational training in SNJ's.

Approximately the first month was spent in learning the airplane. Lectures were required on the operation of the engine and of the aircraft. After ten hours familiarization each pilot was given a place in the tactical organization and became a member of a division or team. Each division was required to fly three one and one-half hours flights per day. In order to do this, the squadron was split into port and starboard watches with one coming to work at sunrise and the other quitting at sunset.

Gunnery was the keynote of our training. All type runs were made using different speeds and altitudes for the tow. Each pilot received at least ten hours of high altitude gunnery with the tow at 20,000 feet. Sixty per cent of the gunnery was done at 15,000 feet with the target at 150 knots indicated. As often as possible this squadron used the metal screen banner target.

Much time was devoted to defensive and offensive tactics. Specific rules and regulations were laid down and adhered to so that any two pilots could work together on defense if necessary. To be successful at this each person must know what the other will or will not do.

This air group participated in an attack as a group against surface vessels at least once a week. These exercises paid tremendous dividends in the combat area as our squadrons were able to make quick coordinated attacks and retire. This method was used by Air Group 20 in an attack on the Jap BB Musashi which sank shortly afterward. Many of those group attacks included pre-dawn takeoffs and rendezvous by squadrons within sight contact of the target.

Each pilot received approximately ten hours of night flying. The first few hours were individual flying and the latter by divisions. Field carrier landing practice was conducted last, followed by carrier qualification aboard ship. This squadron followed and completed the syllabus as prescribed by Commander Fleet Air, West Coast.

Insignia
The squadron insignia depicting a "Joker coming through", was adopted as a reply to the chiding directed during the early days at the younger pilots of the squadron. This chiding usually took the form of referring to all young inexperienced pilots as "Jokers". The lads of Fighting Twenty said, "O.K., we'll show 'em - the Jokers coming through." Thus was born the symbolism soon to be unpleasantly familiar to the Nipponese from the Napo Shoto to the French Indo-China Coast, from the Nansei Shoto to Palau.

Photography
An account of the activities of the squadron would not be complete without some reference to the excellent work performed by the photographic pilots. During the greater part of its operations, the squadron had at least two F6F-5(P) planes and three pilots who had completed training in photography. On virtually every strike day these pilots flew either with the Group Commander or in a division whose mission was solely to obtain photographs of target areas, shipping, and shore lines. In order to obtain the assigned coverage they were frequently required to make low altitude runs near heavy concentrations of AA batteries without being able to resort to evasive maneuvers. It was found that photographs, both verticals and obliques, were of inestimable value, not only in selecting targets for later strikes, but in estimating damage to targets previously attacked. As time progressed increasing importance was attached to this type of work until it finally came to play one of the most essential roles in the squadron operations.

Routine Searches
Searches were not conducted by this squadron as a routine matter. However, on a number of occasions fighters were sent out, usually with VB or VT planes, in search of downed pilots or enemy shipping, or to determine and report on weather conditions. Until January 1945, only a few incidental searches were conducted, principally for enemy shipping. For example, on 25 October, two search teams, each consisting of four VB and eight VF, sighted and attacked a formation of Japanese warships. Again on 25 October, a number of teams, each consisting of one VT and VF, were sent out to a distance of 275 miles to locate possible units of the enemy fleet near the Task Force. During January, shipping searches increased in number owing to the ever-present threat of interference by the enemy fleet with landing operations at Lingayen Gulf . The teams making these searches consisted of one VB and two VF planes. They usually covered ten degree sectors out to distances ranging between 360 and 420 miles.

Consistently bad weather conditions during January made flying on such searches extremely hazardous and navigation most difficult. The pilots were forced to fly on instruments much of the time and rely heavily on their plotting-board navigation while maintaining close formation to avoid becoming separated. However, the only loss as the result of weather was suffered on 17 January when one of the search teams missed the disposition on their return trip and when last heard from were 100 miles from base with only 25 gallons of fuel remaining. All three planes and their crews were lost.

In addition to the weather there was always the possibility of surprise enemy attacks such as occurred on 16 January off Samah, Hainan, when one of the teams was caught at a low altitude and slow speed by six Zekes. The bomber and one of the escorting fighters were shot down in exchange for one Zeke.

Perhaps the greatest distinction achieved by any of the search teams was that of being the first regular carrier based planes to fly over China. This occurred on 3 January 1945, when a team skirted the north coast of Formosa and flew west to the China Coast in search of enemy shipping.

Principal Actions
Strikes On Bonin Islands: 31 August - 2 September 1944
The squadron began its combat career with a fighter sweep on Chichi Jima Island on the afternoon of 31 August 1944. This was followed up the next two days with sweeps and strikes on Chichi Jima, Ani Jima, and Haha Jima. In the absence of enemy airborne opposition and shipping of any size, the fighters concentrated on warehouses, harbor installations, and AA positions, making rocket and strafing attacks. In addition a number of SC's and VA's were damaged and destroyed. One photographic plane made a forced landing after being hit by AA fire over Haha Jima, but the pilot was rescued by a submarine.

Yap-Palau Strikes: 6-18 September 1944
On 6, 7, and 8 September, the fighters conducted number of sweeps and strikes on Yap Island. Again there were no enemy planes to oppose the attacks, and AA fire was meager though at times very accurate. Three fighters were lost over Yap Town during the first sweep, all three presumably to AA fire. Few suitable targets were found other than airfield which had already been heavily damaged and was inoperational.

Yap strikes were followed up by pre-invasion strikes on the Palau Islands and landing support missions over Peleliu Island. No enemy planes were found in the air, but intense AA fire was encountered over the Koror area. The fighters concentrated rocket and strafing attacks on barracks, warehouses, radio stations, barges, and AA positions. Some experiments were made with napalm bombs on warehouses on Malakal Island and along beach areas during the landings on Peleliu Island.

Okinawa-Formosa: 10 - 13 October 1944
The strikes on Okinawa on 10 October afforded the pilots the first opportunity to attack targets which had not been previously hit. Although Yonton and Naha airfields were both operational, our pilots did not encounter any planes in the air. However, they found many planes parked on the airfields, fifteen of which were destroyed and twenty-seven more of which they damaged. Two FTC's were damaged by rockets in coordinated attacks with VB and VT planes on shipping off Naha. In addition a number of smaller craft were damaged and destroyed.

The first enemy airborne opposition was encountered on 12 October over southern Formosa when the fighter sweep engaged approximately 30 Oscars and Zekes, 18 of which they shot down without loss to themselves. Three more were shot down by fighters on the first strike the same morning. During the remaining strikes on 12 and 13 October, there was virtually no more enemy opposition in the air, thus enabling the fighters to concentrate on parked planes and aircraft installations at Tainan, Heito, Okayama and Takao airfields and on shipping in Takao Harbor and along the coast as far north as Tainan. In addition to destroying 24 planes in the air, the squadron destroyed 21 planes on the ground, sank one FTD and damaged one FB, 2 FTC, and one FTD.

While the Task Group was returning late in the afternoon of 13 October, it was taken under attack by a number of low flying Frances and Bettys. The eight fighters scrambled to intercept them, splashed five, two of which were inside the destroyer screen when shot down. A sixth was destroyed by one of the night fighters who was making a ferry hop back to base from another carrier.

Strikes On Luzon: 15, 17, 18 October 1944
The strikes on Luzon on 15, 17, 18 October were devoted, insofar as the fighters were concerned, almost entirely to the destruction of enemy aircraft in the air and on the ground.

The escorting fighters on the first strike set the pace by shooting down 12 of nearly 30 planes that rose to intercept them and probably destroying several others. None of our planes were lost or hit. Before the strike planes had returned to base, the first wave of enemy planes approached the Task Group. The remainder of that day consisted of repeated engagements between attacking enemy planes, including fighters, and our F6F's. The final score for the encounters around the Task Force was 24 Jap planes shot down with the loss of two F6F's, the pilot of one being recovered. No ships were hit.

On the 17th, during strikes on Manila airfields and the Clark Field area, an additional 17 planes were shot down and destroyed on the ground.

On 18 October stiff fighter opposition was again encountered over both Manila and Clark Field areas. In a series of engagements, 27 enemy fighters were shot down for a loss of one F6F and its pilot. In addition, 24 enemy aircraft were destroyed on the ground, 22 more probably destroyed and 44 damaged. Two of our planes and one pilot were lost to AA fire over Clark Field.

The last strike of the day was carried out on shipping in Manila Bay in spite of an impending typhoon accompanied by a weather front which necessitated a circuitous route to and from the target area. One SB, 2 FTC, and 1 FB were seriously damaged. Landings were successfully made in the dark with as little as eight gallons of fuel remaining in many of the fighters.

Second Battle of the Philippines: 24 - 25 October 1944
The fighters of this squadron participated in attacks on all three of the enemy task forces engaged in the Second Battle of the Philippine Sea.

On the morning of the 24th, two search teams each consisting of 4 VB and 8 VF planes flew west over the Visayans and Sulu Sea in search of one of the enemy formations which was sighted in the Sulu Sea and taken under attack by both teams. The fighters preceded the bombers in the dives accounting for damage to one of the Fuso class BB's, the Mogami class CA and 2 DD's. Comdr. Bakutis made a forced landing after being hit by AA fire from one of the DD's, but was rescued seven days later.

On the afternoon of the 24th, a coordinated attack was made on the enemy formation in the Sibuyan Sea. The fighters, having only rockets and machine guns, attacked a CA and 2 DD's, probably sinking one DD and damaging the other two ships. Although intense AA fire of all types was encountered, no planes were lost.

The following day a series of attacks was carried out on the formation northeast of Luzon which included four aircraft carriers and two Ise class BB's. With the exception of the last attack on which they carried 1,000 lb. bombs, the fighters were loaded with rockets and .50 calibre ammunition and therefore confined their targets principally to CL's and DD's. On the last attack they dropped on a CL and Ise class BB.

Only six Zekes attempted to intercept the first attack in the morning. One was destroyed, one probably destroyed, and a third damaged but not before they were able to shoot down one of our fighters and damage a second so severely that it had to make a water landing near a destroyer. Both pilots were rescued. The results of the attacks on these enemy ships were one DD probably sunk, and one BB and 2 CL damaged.

Support of Army Leyte Operation, 27 - 29 October 1944
During 27, 28, and 29 October the squadron furnished combat air patrols over Leyte to augment the Army patrols which were at that time still small in view of inadequate bases. During these patrols our F6F's shot down 9 enemy planes and damaged several others. Planes sent out in search of crippled units of the enemy fleet found and probably sank a destroyer and damaged a minesweeper. Two of our pilots were forced to bail out over Ormoc Bay when their planes were set afire by enemy fighters. Both pilots were later recovered.

Strikes On Philippines: 11, 13, 14, and 19 November 1944
On 11 November 1944, planes from all three squadrons in the Air Group made a coordinated attack on an enemy convoy of 4 AK, 5 DD, and 1 DE as it was turning into Ormoc Bay. Although the fighter cover which the enemy had furnished to protect the convoy had been eliminated by Air Groups preceding ours, the pilots encountered stiff opposition in the form of AA fire from the escort ships. However, the fighters pressed home their attacks to score bomb bits on 1 AK and 4 DD's and heavily strafed 3 of the 4 DD's. Two of the DD's and the AK sank.

On 13 and 14 November, strikes were conducted shipping in Manila Harbor and on aircraft and installations in the Clark Field area. Many cargo vessels were found in Manila Bay, four of which were damaged with bombing, rocket, and strafing attacks. A Kuma-Natori class cruiser was also hit with rockets before it was sunk by the bombers. During these two days enemy fighter opposition continued although on a much smaller scale than during the strikes in October. Twelve enemy fighters were shot down on the 13th and four more on the 14th, all but three of which were met over the Clark Field area. Although parked aircraft were more difficult to locate and did not burn as readily as on previous strikes, 12 were destroyed and 27 more damaged.

On 19 November the Group Commander discovered a large concentration of parked aircraft on Del Carmen (Florida Blanca) and Porac airfields, all of which are believed to have been destroyed by the fighters in two concentrated low level attacks which were unhampered by AA fire. The total bag for the day was 92 aircraft destroyed and 68 more damaged. Late that afternoon four Bettys made an attack on our Task Group but all four were splashed by a four plane division of our fighters which was scrambled to intercept them. One of our pilots was shot down by a Betty and not recovered.

Strikes On Clark Field Area: 14-16 December 1944
The three days of strikes on the Clark Field area in December were perhaps the most trying experienced by our pilots up to that time. Anti-aircraft batteries of all sizes had been greatly strengthened since the previous strikes and were finding their marks with far greater accuracy. Six fighters were shot down by AA fire on the 14th although two of the pilots parachuted safely and were rescued by guerrilla forces. Several other planes were hit but managed to land aboard safely.

Fighter opposition was weak, only seven planes rising to intercept the first sweep on the 14th, all seven of which were destroyed. Lt. (jg) Douglas Baker accounted for four of the Jap planes making a total of 16 for him before he in turn was shot down by AA fire and killed. Nineteen enemy planes were destroyed on the ground that day and twelve more damaged. On the following two days, fewer planes were destroyed on the ground since the fighters were forced to concentrate their dives chiefly on AA positions.

The second strike on the 16th encountered two Bettys, two Oscars, and four Zekes which were crossing the east coast of Luzon with the apparent mission of attacking the Task Force. Our planes shot down five of the fighters while planes from the Hancock took care of the Bettys and the sixth fighter, making a clean sweep.

Support Of Landings, Lingayen Gulf: 3-22 January 1945
Although this squadron did not lend direct support to the Army landings in Lingayen Gulf, the missions flown during January were all designed primarily to assist that operation, and since they cannot well be broken down into separate actions, they are all lumped together under the above heading.

During 3 and 4 January, strikes were conducted on aircraft, aircraft installations, and shipping in the vicinity of southern Formosa. Extremely adverse weather conditions over Formosa and to the east of the island hampered attacks considerably and imposed a very real strain on the pilots who were forced to fly a great part of the time on instruments. Since the airfields were closed in most of these two days, attacks were directed at shipping to the west of Formosa where better weather conditions prevailed. In addition to heavy concentrations of shipping in Takao and Toshien Harbors, many ships were found along the coast and a small convoy was sighted fifteen miles west of Tainan. During the two days, the fighters damaged 2 SB, 1 SC, and 3 DE. They also assisted in sinking 1 FTC and probably sank 1 DE. Four enemy planes were shot down, but because of poor visibility over the airfields, only five were destroyed on the ground.

The 6th and 7th of January were devoted to strikes on the Clark Field area and northern Luzon. The foul weather persisted with high winds, overcast extending from 100 feet to 12,000 in many areas and occasional heavy rain storms. Because of the weather and the scarcity of planes and other suitable targets in the Clark Field area, the results of the strikes were not commensurate with the effort expended. One enemy plane was destroyed in the air, four on the ground, and eight were damaged on the ground. In addition, 1 SB, and 1 FTC were seriously damaged. Two of our planes were lost as a result of fighter opposition, but one of the pilots was recovered.

On 9 January strikes were resumed on southern Formosa with better results. Once again shipping constituted principal targets. One PC boat and three SC's were destroyed and an SA was sunk in conjunction with bombers and torpedo planes. In addition, 1 SA, 1 SB, 1 FTC, 3 DE's and 1 SC were seriously damaged along with a number of smaller craft. Following the strikes on the 9th, the Third Fleet passed through the Bashi Channel into the South China Sea.

On 12 January, strikes were conducted on the French Indo-China Coast. Two convoys were sighted, one of 8 ships south of Camranh Bay, and a second of 14 ships off Quinhon, both of which were virtually wiped out. The first convoy was attacked by AG-20 planes alone whereas in the case of the second convoy (off Quinhon), AG-20 planes participated in the attack with Air Groups 11 and 7. The fighters from this squadron sank 2 DE's, assisted in the sinking of a Katori class CL and damaged 1 SA, 5 SB, 1 DE, and 2 gunboats. Most of the damaged ships were left beached and burning. Eight planes were destroyed on the ground or on the water, including 4 at an airfield near Saigon. There was no fighter opposition during any of the attacks, but three of our planes and two pilots were lost to AA fire from the ships.

On 15 January the squadron participated in attacks on shipping west of Formosa, principally at the Pescadores Islands, and in a sweep on airfields in the vicinity of Hong Kong, China. In a coordinated attack with VT planes, 1 DD was probably sunk and an FTC was damaged along with several smaller craft. After a long chase, Comdr. Bakutis destroyed a George which is believed to have been one of the first planes of this type to have been shot down in this war to date.

On 16 January our fighters took part in a series of sweeps and strikes on airfields, shipping, and harbor installations at Hong Kong and Kowloon. The AA fire thrown up by ships in the harbor and shore batteries was as intense and accurate as any that the pilots had ever encountered. Largely as a result of this fire which necessitated evasive maneuvering during the dives, little damage is believed to have been done to the shipping. However, extensive damage was caused in attacks on warehouses, dockyards, and oil storage areas. Miraculously, no planes were lost.

One of the search teams consisting of 1 VB and 2 VF planes was attacked by 6 Zekes off Samah, Hainan. One Zeke was destroyed, but we in turn lost the VB plane and 1 fighter. The fighter pilot was rescued.

By 21 January the Third Fleet had left the South China Sea and on that date the squadron participated in the Air Group's last series of strikes on southern Formosa. Favorable weather permitted attacks on airfields on a somewhat larger scale than earlier in the month. However, excellent dispersal and camouflaging made aircraft difficult to pick out on the ground and only 10 were destroyed and 6 damaged. Considerable damage was done to hangars and other installations. Shipping in Takao and Toshien Harbors was again attacked. One SA was sunk and 3 SA, 1 FB, 1 FTA, 1 FTC, and 1 DD were damaged. One Val was shot down by two rescue combat patrol planes enroute to their stations over the rescue submarine. One of our pilots was rescued by the submarine after making a forced water landing caused by AA fire over Toshien Harbor.

On 22 January, the last day of operations before returning to the States for reforming, the squadron participated in strikes on Okinawa Jima. No enemy aircraft opposed the attacks and few were found on the ground. Other suitable targets were equally scarce. A number of small vessels and several installations including a radio station were destroyed, but the overall damage was not great.

Night Fighters

VF(N)-78, commanded by CDR James Gray (third from left, back row) flew four radar-equipped Hellcats from Enterprise as part of AG-20.
Air Group Twenty was strengthened at Puunene by the addition of night fighters on 23 July 1944. Commanded by Lt. Comdr. James S. Gray, Jr., and consisting of six pilots especially trained for night fighting together with its own complement of AV(S) officers and enlisted personnel, this detachment had an essential role in our combat record.

Night Fighter Squadron 78 bad been commissioned at NAS Quonset Point, R. I., on 1 February 1944, under Lt. Comdr. Gray. The squadron had arrived at NAS Barbers Point on 12 June where they continued training until assignment by detachments to five various carrier air groups. It was not until 2 October that the squadron was decommissioned and our detachment administratively integrated with VF-20.

As Lt. Frank Kennedy wrote in the VF(N)-78 History, the detachment "besides carrying out its night-fighting missions, participated in strikes, sweeps, searches, and patrols that played havoc with the enemy in daylight hours. These six pilots from headquarters detachment alone destroyed 12 enemy aircraft in the air, two of which were at night, besides playing their part in the destruction of enemy surface vessels, aircraft on the ground, shipping, and land installations."

woofiedog
12-15-2005, 01:04 PM
continued from other post...

https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history_files/t-va195.jpg https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history_files/t-va195a.jpg https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history_files/t-va195b.jpg https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history_files/t-va195c.jpg

A Tradition of Courage

https://www.atsugi.navy.mil/cvw5/VFA195/history_files/vfa195.jpg

Edited by ENS Myers, Chippy PAO

Strike Fighter Squadron ONE NINE FIVE boasts a proud and exciting history. Commissioned the TIGERS of Torpedo Squadron NINETEEN at Los Alamitos, California in August 1943, the squadron became Attack Squadron TWENTY ABLE in November 1946, Attack Squadron ONE NINE FIVE in August 1948, and Strike Fighter Squadron ONE NINE FIVE on 1 April 1985.

As unit of CVG 19 during World War II, VT19, flying the TBM Avenger, was a part of Admiral Bull Halsey€s Naval Force which hit hard, hit fast and hit often. The squadron participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and in the landings at Guam, Palau, Morotai and Leyte. Squadron pilots also flew strikes against the Carolines, Philippines, Bonin Island, Okinawa, Mindanao and Formosa while embarked on USS LEXINGTON.

In May 1947, Attack Squadron TWENTY ABLE transitioned to the AD-1 Skyraider. The squadron served in the Korean War while embarked on USS PRINCETON. On 2 May 1951, the squadron€s Skyraiders, making precise low level runs, delivered aerial torpedoes on the heavily defended and strategically positioned Hwa Chon Dam in North Korea. Destruction of the dam had been attempted by Air Force and Navy bombers but was finally accomplished by Attack Squadron TWENTY ABLE, earning them the nickname Dambusters.

Attack Squadron ONE NINE FIVE transitioned from the propeller driven Skyraiders (also known as Spads) to the jet powered A-4 Skyhawk in July 1959 and moved to NAS Lemoore, California in January 1962. As the Vietnam crisis flared in the fall of 1964, the DAMBUSTERS made their fourth consecutive deployment on USS BON HOMME RICHARD with the U.S. SEVENTH FLEET. During the next five years, while operating various models of the A-4 from the decks of the USS BON HOMME RICHARD and USS TICONDEROGA, the squadron logged more combat flight hours and sorties than any other squadron in Air Wing NINETEEN.

In the spring of 1970 VA-195 passed another milestone, transitioning to the A-7E Corsair II. As a unit of Carrier Air Wing ELEVEN on USS KITTY HAWK, the squadron deployed in the fall of 1970, marking its fourth consecutive decade of involvement in foreign conflicts. During the Vietnam War VA-195 delivered the first data link version of the television guided Walleye Glide Bomb in combat. Success was sweet on 19 July 1972 as the DAMBUSTERS delivered a single Walleye down the throat of a cave storage area causing its complete destruction. Later the same day, they destroyed the Ninh Binh railroad bridge, also with a single weapon. VA-195€s performance during the 1972 deployment was exemplary, setting new records in sorties flown, ordnance delivered and days of combat operations.


Over the course of three peacetime WESTPAC deployments aboard USS KITTY HAWK, VFA-195 helped pioneer the concept of bringing together all elements of carrier aviation in a single air wing on board a single carrier, while keeping the squadron a combat ready force from 1973 to 1979. In 1981, the DAMBUSTERS made back-to-back deployments aboard USS AMERICA, making history as USS AMERICA became the largest warship ever to transit the Suez Canal.

The DAMBUSTERS were assigned to Carrier Air Wing FIFTEEN and NINETEEN before joining Carrier Air Wing NINE late in 1982. VA-195 deployed in 1983 to Central America and the Western Pacific before making a 122 day line period in the Indian Ocean.


The DAMBUSTERS were redesignated Strike Fighter Squadron ONE NINE FIVE on 1 April 1985 and commenced transition to the F/A-18 Hornet. Upon completion, VFA-195 was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 5 and officially joined the Forward Deployed Naval Forces in Yokosuka, Japan on 1 July 1986. While ashore, the DAMBUSTERS operate out of NAF Atsugi, Japan. In the fall of 1988 and again in 1989, the squadron embarked aboard USS MIDWAY (CV-41) and made deployments to the Indian Ocean, along with several shorter deployments in the Western Pacific.


Following Iraq€s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the USS MIDWAY and CVW-5 relieved the USS INDEPENDENCE on duty in the Arabian Gulf in support of Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM. During the conflict, the DAMBUSTERS flew 564 combat missions, delivering 356 tons of ordnance, and became the first Hornet squadron to deliver a Walleye II glide bomb in combat.

Still aboard USS INDEPENDENCE, CVW-5 and the DAMBUSTERS deployed in March 1996 to calm tensions in the Taiwan Strait over Taiwan€s first direct presidential elections. After several more Western Pacific and Arabian Gulf deployments and the cross deck to USS KITTY HAWK, the DAMBUSTERS flew in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in 2001, striking targets deep in Afghanistan. Called on for duty in the Arabian Gulf in 2003, the DAMBUSTERS found themselves in harm€s way once more over Iraq. Flying 278 combat sorties in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, VFA-195 delivered 179,000 pounds of precision guided munitions against military targets over the course of a single month. As in 1991, the DAMBUSTERS played an integral role in the defeat of Saddam Hussein€s forces.

Over the past year, the DAMBUSTERS have been deployed or detached for more than 200 days, including participation in exercises from Guam and Korea to Malaysia and Australia.

Strike Fighter Squadron ONE NINE FIVE has played a role in every major conflict since World War II. The DAMBUSTERS will continue this proud tradition of courage and readiness whenever the nation calls. CHIPPY HO!

Capt.England
12-15-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
Lancasters continued to serve with Britain's Royal Air Force after the war, primarily as a maritime reconnaissance aircraft for Coastal Command. Bomber Command squadrons continued to use the Lancasters until 1953 and other RAF Lancs continued to serve until 1964 undertaking a variety of non-combat roles such as photographic reconnaissance duties in Africa.

Quote... Budd Davisson, EAA/Sport Aviation, December, 1997. Amazingly enough, Amjet's Shackleton had been on line flying maritime patrols as late as 1991!

http://www.geocities.com/lucktam/awacs/jpgs/shack4.jpg

HISTORY

The "Shackleton" was a development of the Lincoln. Three M.R.1 prototype aircraft were built, the first flight was on the 9th of March 1949 (VW126). The first production aircraft (VP254) flew on the 24th of Oct 1954. The Shackleton M.R.1 entered service in April 1951 with 120 Squadron at Kinloss. Seventy seven MR1 and MR1A aircraft were built, with production ending in July 1952. MR1 aircraft were later modified for training and designated T.4. Shackleton M.R.2's introduced a streamlined fuselage, a retractable radome at the rear and a nose turret for two cannons. The prototype M.R.2 first flew on the 17th of June 1952, entering service with 42 squadron in Jan 1953 at St. Eval. Seventy M.R. 2's were delivered to the R.A.F. In September 1955 the Shackleton M.R.3 (WR970), made it's maiden flight. Superficially similar to it's predecessors, the M.R.3 was in fact considerably different. The tricycle undercarriage design of the M.R.3 was more in line with modern aircraft. It had additional fuel capacity in tip tanks, the cockpit was redesigned as a frameless clear canopy and the aircraft was partially soundproofed. Thirty four M.R.3.'s were delivered to the R.A.F. A small number were sold to the South African Air Force. A number of improvements were made to both M.R.2 and M.R.3 marks, the final re-fit being to "Phase 3" standard. This refurbished the aircraft interior and added an additional sonics position as well numerous other improvements in equipment and decor. Soon after the first MK 3 aircraft were returned to the squadrons another major change was made to the M.R.3 with a Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet being added, one to each outboard nacelle. This change was incorporated in those MR3's undergoing Phase 3 refits. Maritime versions of Shackletons were steadily withdrawn from service during 1970/71. The M.R.2 was refurbished and refitted in the Airborne Early Warning role with the APS 20F radar from the R.N. Gannet A.E.W.3. Only 8 squadron, formed at Kinloss in Jan 1972 were equipped with this variant and with the A.E.W. Nimrod version cancelled, were destined to carry on flying well into the 1990's.

At least Woofiedog knows his stuff and mentions the extra engines that one version had!

Shame on the rest of you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

woofiedog
12-15-2005, 01:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Capt.England ... If my wife only said that after 30yr's of marriage! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif