History vs Cinema

[BAYLOR]

After a quick google it seems it had paint thrown on it and had its face gouged. So no not decapitated.

I think it would be safe to say that there is disapproval of the statue.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If watching a historical movie gets the viewer to pick up a history book or historical novel - or even Wikipedia - to learn more about it then that is all good. Movies first and foremost are there to make money. I have spoken to people before who very much dislike Braveheart for the fact that it is historical nonsense, but that is kind of missing the point. It's a captivating, action-packed movie which has great baddies and charismatic good guys. And the battle scenes are uncompromisingly brutal, and few films to that point had shown a battle how it actually probably was.

It was only after watching the movie that I took more interest in Edward I and have visited many of his Welsh castles as well as Stirling Castle and the magnificent Wallace monument. I know now that the film is jam-packed with inaccuracies, but I don't find it less enjoyable to watch.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Having just watched 'Rise of the Clans' it is somewhat ironic that Rob Roy - released around the same time as Braveheart, and based on another Scottish hero - gets none of the same criticism for authenticity that Mel Gibson's does, but is in fact far more inaccurate . Another great film with a marvellous English villain (why does England always seem to be best for bad guys?), but historically complete nonsense.

 

[svalbard]

Is Rise of the Clans worth a watch? I am a bit meh about Neil Oliver.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Having just watched 'Rise of the Clans' it is somewhat ironic that Rob Roy - released around the same time as Braveheart, and based on another Scottish hero - gets none of the same criticism for authenticity that Mel Gibson's does, but is in fact far more inaccurate . Another great film with a marvellous English villain (why does England always seem to be best for bad guys?), but historically complete nonsense.

I haven't seen the film (or at the very least can't remember it) and I have read Walter Scott's novel of the same name (but really can't recall much of it! It was 30 years ago ) , but if the film was based on the novel, then we know that the book was 'largely fictitious' and made-up by Scott anyway, using a few bits of Rob Roy's mythology that were true.

 

[svalbard]

I haven't seen the film (or at the very least can't remember it) and I have read Walter Scott's novel of the same name (but really can't recall much of it! It was 30 years ago ) , but if the film was based on the novel, then we know that the book was 'largely fictitious' and made-up by Scott anyway, using a few bits of Rob Roy's mythology that were true.

I think this is a Neil Oliver documentary for the BBC.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I think this is a Neil Oliver documentary for the BBC.

I read Paranoid Marvins post that it's '...Rob Roy - released around the same time as Braveheart...Another great film with a marvellous English villain...' was Rob Roy (1995) because 'Rise of the Clans' is TV series

 

[svalbard]

Now I am confused

 

[paranoid marvin]

Rise of the Clans is an excellent documentary, Rob Roy was a movie that came out around the same time as Braveheart and ended up lost in it's shadow. I think the movie was perhaps more based on the book than on the actual person himself, which portrays him as a Scottish Robin Hood rather than the man that he actually was. Prior to Walter Scott's romanticised novel, there was a fictionalised account written about him during his lifetime called 'The Highland Rogue' and (according to the tv series) people would travel to Scotland just to see the living legend himself.

 

[Venusian Broon]

On a different topic about historical inaccuracies, when I was a young lad I knew my Tanks. I mean big metal vehicle with gun is a proper boy hobby .

So there were a number of 1960s War films on the second world war that always irritated me because they had the Germans clearly using post-war US tanks. Patton and The Battle of the Bulge using M48 Patton (ironically!) and M47 Patton tanks respectively for the Nazis. Okay, I know that there were virtually no Panzer Mark fours running in the world (although I believe there were some still in operation in Syria at the time) so it would have been very expensive to dress up other tanks to look like Pz III's and IV's.

However, Kelly's Heroes a few years later, managed to actually get Shermans and they made a reasonable effort to get a tank that looked like a Tiger. (It's actually, again a little ironically, a modified T34)

 

[BigBadBob141]

Not a Panther, Tiger or King Tiger in sight, I know just what you mean, like the WW1 films that always use a disguised Tiger Moth instead of a Sopwith Camel or SE5a!
P.S. T34 instead of a Tiger, now that is the height of irony.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Not a Panther, Tiger or King Tiger in sight, I know just what you mean, like the WW1 films that always use a disguised Tiger Moth instead of a Sopwith Camel or SE5a!
P.S. T34 instead of a Tiger, now that is the height of irony.

On a more positive note for accuracy in such films, in the Battle of Britain they had access to Spanish built aircraft that were essentially Heinkel 111's and Bf 109's.

 

[BAYLOR]

On a different topic about historical inaccuracies, when I was a young lad I knew my Tanks. I mean big metal vehicle with gun is a proper boy hobby .

So there were a number of 1960s War films on the second world war that always irritated me because they had the Germans clearly using post-war US tanks. Patton and The Battle of the Bulge using M48 Patton (ironically!) and M47 Patton tanks respectively for the Nazis. Okay, I know that there were virtually no Panzer Mark fours running in the world (although I believe there were some still in operation in Syria at the time) so it would have been very expensive to dress up other tanks to look like Pz III's and IV's.

However, Kelly's Heroes a few years later, managed to actually get Shermans and they made a reasonable effort to get a tank that looked like a Tiger. (It's actually, again a little ironically, a modified T34)

In the Movie Battle of the Budge , they were using Chaffees M24 Tanks instead of Shermans Chaffees did see action in WW II there were none at that battle.

 

[BAYLOR]

On a more positive note for accuracy in such films, in the Battle of Britain they had access to Spanish built aircraft that were essentially Heinkel 111's and Bf 109's.

Spitfire vs ME 109 . The Spitfire was the better of the two planes. Well armed and had better Turning radius than then 109.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Spitfire vs ME 109 . The Spitfire was the better of the two planes. Well armed and had better Turning radius than then 109.

To be fair (and I'm British) the Spitfire became bettter. It was onwards from the Spitfire Mark 9 (1942-ish?) that I believe that started to compete, then later on outperform all German interceptors, especially the FW 190. At first during the battle of Britain I do think if the Messerschmitt/Bf 109s had been allowed to hunt down the mark 1 and 2 Spitfires they would have been much more successful. However, even with a superior plane in 1941, as I think they had, the Germans had limited fuel capacity over Britain which severely limited their potential and they had been ordered to proect the bombers.

 

[BAYLOR]

To be fair (and I'm British) the Spitfire became bettter. It was onwards from the Spitfire Mark 9 (1942-ish?) that I believe that started to compete, then later on outperform all German interceptors, especially the FW 190. At first during the battle of Britain I do think if the Messerschmitt/Bf 109s had been allowed to hunt down the mark 1 and 2 Spitfires they would have been much more successful. However, even with a superior plane in 1941, as I think they had, the Germans had limited fuel capacity over Britain which severely limited their potential and they had been ordered to proect the bombers.

Interesting that German fighter planes carried no drop tanks which , would've have extended their ability to fight in the air over Britain. Its huge strategic blunder on the part of the Luftwaffe.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Interesting that German fighter planes carried no drop tanks which , would've have extended their ability to fight in the air over Britain. Its huge strategic blunder on the part of the Luftwaffe.

From a quick google, it appears that the Luftwaffe were just experimenting with Drop tanks during the Battle of Britain and they only became a standard fitting on 109E's from October 1940. As for why they didn't design aircraft with longer ranges before that, I'd argue

1) They were constantly improving aircraft tech all the time - the Spitfire Mark 1 for example only had a range of ~400 km - later variants pushing this to ~800km which is sort of similar to the sort of ranges the 109 variants were getting.
2) The Luftwaffe was organised to be effective as air support for the army. They did not really build the arm with strategic bombing in mind, so having interceptors with long range capability was probably not high on the list of desired characteristics.

 

[Foxbat]

Talking of Spitfires. There's one in a nearby air museum (East Fortune...it's brilliant..it's even got a Concorde and a Vulcan among many others). I was confused looking at it and wondered if it was actually some kind of Hurricane. It didn't have the classic Spitfire eliptical wing shape and instead, a flat edge. Reading the bumf, it turns out that a lot of Spitfires (especially those used for recce) had their wings clipped. This apparently improved their turning circle.

And still on the subject of Spitfires, one recce pilot had Vini, Vidi, Evasi written on his, which apparently translates to I came, I saw, I ran away.

 

[Vladd67]

Talking of Spitfires. There's one in a nearby air museum (East Fortune...it's brilliant..it's even got a Concorde and a Vulcan among many others). I was confused looking at it and wondered if it was actually some kind of Hurricane. It didn't have the classic Spitfire eliptical wing shape and instead, a flat edge. Reading the bumf, it turns out that a lot of Spitfires (especially those used for recce) had their wings clipped. This apparently improved their turning circle.

And still on the subject of Spitfires, one recce pilot had Vini, Vidi, Evasi written on his, which apparently translates to I came, I saw, I ran away.

That sums up Recon I guess, they aren’t paid to get too involved. I remember passing an airfield and seeing The Vulcan take off, it was amazing to see an aircraft that big gain height that quickly.

 

[BAYLOR]

From a quick google, it appears that the Luftwaffe were just experimenting with Drop tanks during the Battle of Britain and they only became a standard fitting on 109E's from October 1940. As for why they didn't design aircraft with longer ranges before that, I'd argue

1) They were constantly improving aircraft tech all the time - the Spitfire Mark 1 for example only had a range of ~400 km - later variants pushing this to ~800km which is sort of similar to the sort of ranges the 109 variants were getting.
2) The Luftwaffe was organised to be effective as air support for the army. They did not really build the arm with strategic bombing in mind, so having interceptors with long range capability was probably not high on the list of desired characteristics.

So Germany did in fact have have drop tanks, I stand corrected.

When the Battle of Britain started, The Luftwaffe was the beginning of that battle , the best and most most powerful air force in the world. After the battle , though still powerful , it was significantly weaker because they lost so man of their best pilots and aircrews and, the battle exposed all their weakness including the range issues of their planes. One glaring weakness that was very evident before is that Germans didn't; have really good Four Engine long range Bomber. That came back to haunt them in Russia because the Russian had moved all their factories out range of the Germany's Bombers . German General Walter Weaver who was the head of the Luftwaffe in the 193o's was a strong proponent o the Four engine bomber. When he died in 1936 , his four engine bomber program was scrapped in favor tow engine bombers which were cheaper to build. For the Luftwaffe and their other armed series, the German leadership and bureaucracy and was very very inefficient, shortsighted and bizarre in some its though processes . They had jet technology and failed to see and take advantage of it's potential early on, which was very fortunate for the allies. When the ME 262 did online later on , Hitler wanted to use them as dive bombers rather than interceptors. There were so many competing weapons programs going on at the same time that this further wasted Germany limited recourses. It surprises me that Germany lasted as long as they did in the war.