Dunkirk movie Spitfire

[Greenshirt]

My wife loved the film. And I freely admit that it raised emotions in me for the men and women involved at Dunkirk. 

 

However, as noted anyone with a little knowledge may be put off. 

 

- one does not shoot when the nose drops below the target...shoot when leading

- ditching always involves opening the canopy

- fighters rarely have long glide slopes, certainly not long enough to make multiple passes

- Spitfires carried more ammunition than I realized

- level bombers were more accurate than I'd been led to believe; and bombs can be dropped vertically, not follow a path forward. 

 

I can go on and each little bit irked me as the movie progressed. I can see why some would be put off completely if watching for the technical thrills, but I did get the emotion, and I believe that was the objective of the director. 

[stevehnz]

To resurrect this thread, seeing as I'm probably the last on the forum to see this who will bother. I went with my sons last weekend, (22,19 & 16), they loved it. Much of it annoyed me to bits. I deduced it was made for a different demographic than me & I suspect a lot on here. I found the wandering time line thing as confusing as hell though can live with it now my sons have explained it too me ( I thought they were just rehashing the same footage over & over.  ) & the concentration on a bunch of shiftless shirkers & layabouts (Harry Styles & his mates) frankly dishonoured the memory of the many soldiers who were saved by being patient & enduring hardship with stoicism but especially those who died in the process. I also felt the death of the young lad on the launch being attributed to the actions of a shell shocked army lieutenant rather than to enemy action, which would have been far more probable & a better tribute to those who manned the "small ships", also detracted from the movie. I guess I've just confirmed I'm an old fart.  Seeing as the thread is about the Spitfires in the movie, when I told my sons that one of them had cannon bulges I got the "we don't care Dad" response. Bloody philistines.  

Steve.

Edited September 15, 2017 by stevehnz

[Ed Russell]

Seeing it's resurrected here my 2d worth. I quite enjoyed it but I thought it was okay rather than stunning. The air scenes are really quite good - I thought the CASA Messerschmitts and Heinkels were fine and I could have forgiven 4 bladed Spitfires but I didn't have to..... similarly poetic license for the destroyers bristling with radar and twin HA turrets is understandable (but other films have been panned for it - 1941 for instance). I know the director hates CGI but a bit here and there would have benefited not detracted from the film. His unfamiliarity with fighter and bomber tactics was only obvious to those with a far better understanding.  I still can't decide whether the broomstick was a joke or not.

Considering the film as a whole, the three themes didn't confuse me but I thought the army scenes were all over the place and not well put together - the guys hiding in the trawler was inexplicable padding.

Because, a few years ago, my daughter had us family researching her school Titanic project until our eyes watered I got the Lightoller reference but I bet nobody else in the audience did.

I thought by far the biggest problems were context and scale. Dunkirk was massive - not a few guys on a beach. I chatted to some military history-naive young people afterwards over a coffee and they enjoyed it as a film but thought it was inadequately explained for context and they had no idea how much space 10 or 20 thousand troops take up. Hitler's "stop order" and the whole Battle for France were literally explained by one-liners. One said "I wish we had talked to you before the film, not after".

 

PS - if they do a kit of that Yak I would make one!

[stevehnz]

An opportunity for Red Roo Ed?

Steve.

[Ed Russell]

It's not very Australian........ we do make some exceptions, but............. !!! perhaps Mr Ah-model will do it?

[stevehnz]

I was having a meander about the net to check out how one would model it. The actual Yakfire is a modified -52TW which in turn is a modernised -52 made by Aerostar in Romania, gruntier engine, 3 bladed prop & inward retracting u/c with modern cockpit fit out , increased tankage & of course a tail wheel. They'd make a neat pseudo warbird for a lot less than a warbird. Still a lot of readies though I guess. An A-model -52M is possibly the best start place, it has the three bladed prop, still need to shift the u/c wells & scratch a tail wheel as well as make the Yakfire mods to the rear fuselage & cockpits. Do-able? its got me thinking any how.

Steve.

[Nick Millman]

On 29 July 2017 at 10:06 AM, Flankerman said:

 

2. The red ones you see in the photo link are a concession to modern H&S rules about 'safety equipment' being painted red.

 

Just saying....

 

Ken

DTD Technical Circular No.489 of 5 Apr 1945 set out the marking of aircraft escape doors, hatches and break-in panels, requiring (amongst many other things) that all knobs, handles and releases on camouflaged surfaces were to be painted yellow and on uncamouflaged surfaces to be painted red. I presume that might be the origin of the red painted crowbars.

 

Nick

[Jonny]

On 28 July 2017 at 12:55 PM, Sean_M said:

Its a genunine restored Early MkI and you will need the Resin correction for Revells 1/32 MkII. The Aircraft Restoration Company's Supermarine Spitfire Mk1 N3200 is the actual aircraft.

Yes indeed.

 

A small point - N3200 is owned by the IWM,  not by ARC.  I think the aeroplane is maintained by ARC.

 

I hope this helps.  I have the Revell Mk II kit and the Barracuda correction set.  Barracuda did sort-of confirm that they're working on one for the Mk. IX too but I've heard nothing more about it.

 

Jonny

[rayprit]

How they made it look SO "real"