|
|
От
|
Андрей Диков
|
|
|
К
|
All
|
|
|
Дата
|
04.06.2001 15:31:59
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
WWII; Флот; ВВС; 1941;
|
|
Все военно-исторические похожи. Обсуждение Харбора за бугром.
День добрый!
Решил поделиться, характер обсуждения до боли знакомый. ;)
Взято с форума Люфтваффе (Руи Хорта):
Dave Pawlikowski
New Pearl Harbor film has BOB in it?
Sun Jun 3 01:52:17 2001
A friend of mine just went and saw Pearl Harbor. Said it had some good BoB CGI stuff. 109's, He-111's, Spits and Hurri's.
Anyone else in the US see it yet? Did they do a good job? I wish a BoB film could be done using modern tech, maybe re-making the '60 version...
Thanks...
Don Pearson
Re: Not to ruin the ending but...
Sun Jun 3 12:20:13 2001
(Hit the enter key)... If you check 'The Eagle's War' by Haugland, you will see that the American volunteer squadrons at this time were flying Hurricanes. The part of the movie that was hardest to believe was that Doolittle would request two successful fighter piots be transfered to twin-engined duty, and qualify to not only fly but get a B-25 off of a carrier deck, in only 4 months. My 2 cents...
Tony Williams
BoB
Sun Jun 3 08:24:04 2001
The BoB bit didn't quite make sense, in that the hero was fighting four months before Pearl Harbour, which would have made it exactly one year too late. Also, his Spitfire had Hispanos.
Tony Williams
marc poole
picking nits
Sun Jun 3 18:40:51 2001
OK, here's a few I spotted:
1) green A6M's??? Should be light gray
2) late model P-40's??? they should have been P-40B's
3) a very brief scene (less than 2 sec.) showing the "Japanese" fleet underway at night, silouetting a US nuclear carrier in the moonlight. After they spent all that time making a digital Japanese navy!
4) re-writing the tale of the broomstick .50's in the tails of the B-25's...They make it appear as if it were a last minute, weight saving idea to replace the B-25's tailguns...B-25B's had no tailguns! The broomhandles were installed as a deterrent before the planes were loaded aboard the Hornet.
Oh well, hope that doesn't spoil it for anyone. Can anyone else spot anymore gaffs?
marc poole
Drew Dorman
Pearl Harbor Gaffs...
Sun Jun 3 21:34:30 2001
Let's see...
1. The green zero's were A6M5's, I believe, which didn't appear until well after Pearl Harbor, like 1943 or 1944. All the zero's should have been light gray with black cowlings.
2. The call letters "RF" on the Spitfires were used in 303 Squadron, a POLOISH squadron, which were flown by POLISH pilots.
3. There was a picture of a Spitfire with a four bladed prop at the base in a scene or two. Four bladed Spitfire's started with the Spitfire IV and later models. The BoB Spits would either be 2 or 3 bladed aircraft.
4. The Doolittle raid bombed various cities/factories. The aircraft were not all flying in formation over one target.
5. Nothing was done in the movie to show the US Battleship Nevada's heroic run for the channel and the open sea, before being run ashore so as to not block the channel after taking numerous torpedoes and bombs.
6. Also, nothing shown about the flight of B-17's that came in to Pearl during the raid. My memory is a bit hazy on when they came in. They only mentioned a flight of B-17's from the mainland, which was mistaken for the Japanese strike force.
7. During the takeoff of the real Doolittle raid, Doolittle's B-25 was coded with serial number 02344 on the tail. But in the movie, he took off in s.n. 02267 I believe. Then, the SECOND B-25 to take off has the SAME serial number as the first B-25 that took off! The only two serial numbers shown in the movie were 02267 and 02261, which were actual serial numbers of the aircraft in the raid.
If I come up with anything else, I'll post it. :)
-Drew
Tony Williams
.50s
Sun Jun 3 20:32:07 2001
Well, while we're nitpicking - there was the guy on the ship blazing away with twin .50s - with the Army's air-cooled barrels instead of the Navy's water-cooled.
Tony Williams
Warren Bell
More Gaffs
Mon Jun 4 03:43:17 2001
Perhaps the most glaring historical inaccuracy of the film is that it shows Admiral Yamamoto accompanying the task force to Hawaiian waters and in direct command of the air strike. As anyone who has read history or seen Tota, Tora. Tora knows, the Pearl Harbor strike was commanded by Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, a non-aviator who was given command of the First Air Fleet strictly on the basis of seniority. Yamamoto remained on his flagship in Japanese waters. The filmmakers transfer from the cautious Nagumo to Yamamoto the crucial decision to forgo a third strike to destroy the shipyards and oil supplies, actually putting in Yamamoto's mouth almost the same words that Tora, Tora, Tora accurately showed Nagumo saying to justify abandoning the third wave attack.
No one who has seriously studied Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto could believe that he would have foregone the third strike. Had he actually been with the Pearl Harbor task force, the Pacific War might have lasted until 1950. Without the oil in the Pearl Harbor tanks, the U.S. offensive would not have been possible until stocks were rebuilt, perhaps a matter of years. The U.S. could not have used the atomic bomb until bases were conquered from which its aircraft could reach Japan.
Mr. Gianmaria
Films
Sun Jun 3 11:33:53 2001
I've not seen it yet, but I have been told not to trust in these new films, that are technologically advanced but are full of historical errors...Maybe "Pearl Harbour" will cause the same mess of "U-571" last year. What do you think??
Frank dwelter
How do our US friends see this film?
Sun Jun 3 21:57:54 2001
As a brit, I found the film fairly mediocre and was disappointed. I appreciate that a modern film with a big budget needs various plot devices to attract diverse audiences, but there's no doubt that the film is trying to do too many things. What i wanted to ask was, in relation to films like 'Saving Private Ryan'etc and including this one, do USA audiences find the degree of patriotism a little over the top? This sort of heavy handed nationalism would never appear in a British made film. I'm not against patriotism (I work in a memorial museum to both US and British airmen) but don't US audiences wince at some of the dialogue?
kevin baesler
Pearl Harbor
Mon Jun 4 06:11:15 2001
Frank, I thought the movie stunk, outside the recreation of the actual attack on Pearl Harbor; they had a big screening here in my town and hosted about 25 surviving vets of the battle who felt the recreation was effective.
To your post, yes I think these movies are hokie and incredibly jingoistic. They are all made to sell tickets, not retell history.
С уважением,
Андрей