Masters Of The Air - Apple TV
Discussion
Smollet said:
When were P47s used as cover?
Before the arrival of the P-51 in decent numbers (mid to late 1943 on), the Americans used whatever fighters they had available as escorts. So P-47s and even P-38s were used. Onbviously, both of these aircraft had their limitations - range in the case of the P-47 and manoeuverability in the case of the P-38.On some occasions, even RAF Spitfires escorted USAAF bombers.
On the deeper raids into Germany, the bombers were generally on their own for most of the mission.
eccles said:
Adam. said:
Yes there are faults and inaccuracies but I am still enjoying it as I love WW2 stuff and it’s mostly well made.
Couple of questions for latest episode
Did they really have that many P51s escorting? When they flew to engage the 109s the CGI looked like hundreds of them!
Wouldn’t they fly high above the bombers to attack 109s from above (rather than fly with and through the bomber formations?
The “Rosie! Rosie! Rosie!” cheers seemed modern and very out of place
Yes they were normally higher up, not with the bombers. The other slight inaccuracy was they ( The Mustangs) still had drop tanks on when engaging the enemy when it was standard practice to jettison them as soon as they engaged.Couple of questions for latest episode
Did they really have that many P51s escorting? When they flew to engage the 109s the CGI looked like hundreds of them!
Wouldn’t they fly high above the bombers to attack 109s from above (rather than fly with and through the bomber formations?
The “Rosie! Rosie! Rosie!” cheers seemed modern and very out of place
Images in movies P-51s flying off the wingtips of bombers are not really accurate - although from time to time I'm sure it did happen. If fighters stay too close to the bombers, they lose their main combat advantage - speed and altitude.
When I was a young lad working in a furniture store, my manager used to be a pilot of a large bomber in WW2.
Can't remember the exact aircraft as this was over 43 years ago now.
He was 21 when he was a captain in charge of a crew and flying an aircraft over enemy territory.
One of my sons is 21 and I wouldn't put him in charge of a wheel barrow.
Can't remember the exact aircraft as this was over 43 years ago now.
He was 21 when he was a captain in charge of a crew and flying an aircraft over enemy territory.
One of my sons is 21 and I wouldn't put him in charge of a wheel barrow.
Eric Mc said:
Here's a very well known picture which shows very well how the escort system worked. The curved contrails higher up come from the fighter escort. They are curved because the fighters are weaving - partly to stay with the bombers (the P-51 was twice as fast as a B-17) and partly to ensure that the area above the bombers was effectively "swept" of enemy fighters.
Images in movies P-51s flying off the wingtips of bombers are not really accurate - although from time to time I'm sure it did happen. If fighters stay too close to the bombers, they lose their main combat advantage - speed and altitude.
I'm sure I remember hearing that the fellow fighter pilots didn't want to stray near the Forts for fear of being shot down by understandably nervous and excited gunners.Images in movies P-51s flying off the wingtips of bombers are not really accurate - although from time to time I'm sure it did happen. If fighters stay too close to the bombers, they lose their main combat advantage - speed and altitude.
Eric Mc said:
Images in movies P-51s flying off the wingtips of bombers are not really accurate - although from time to time I'm sure it did happen. If fighters stay too close to the bombers, they lose their main combat advantage - speed and altitude.
croyde said:
I'm sure I remember hearing that the fellow fighter pilots didn't want to stray near the Forts for fear of being shot down by understandably nervous and excited gunners.
thanks both. Hence my question, it looked very odd and unrealistic.It adds nothing to the story so why not CGI to reflect reality, I assume they consiulted plenty of historians to get things accurate
Smollet said:
Adam. said:
It adds nothing to the story so why not CGI to reflect reality, I assume they consulted plenty of historians to get things accurate
In the movie "Battle of Britain" the whole topic of "close escort" v' "roving patrol above the bombers" is discussed in a heated debate between Herman Goering and some senior Luftwaffe fighter pilots. It's based on a real incident that occured during the Battle.
Eric Mc said:
Smollet said:
Adam. said:
It adds nothing to the story so why not CGI to reflect reality, I assume they consulted plenty of historians to get things accurate
In the movie "Battle of Britain" the whole topic of "close escort" v' "roving patrol above the bombers" is discussed in a heated debate between Herman Goering and some senior Luftwaffe fighter pilots. It's based on a real incident that occured during the Battle.
Orloff clearly claimed that they went to incredible and extreme lengths to establish accuracy and continuity. Tracking which airframe went where, what damage it received and so on. I don't have the knowledge nor desire for rivet counting to argue the toss on that, apart from a gratuitous poke at the German farmer and the "For you the war is over" line.
At least we should be grateful we didn't get as in World on Fire the call to a pilot with his fighter in flames to "Eject! Eject!"
I don't mind some licence in these dramatised tales of real events.
Where I do get annoyed is when things are depicted in such a way that they are woefully inaccurate and misleading. That to me is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer and the memory of the real people being depicted.
And, of course, creates a "false" history of real events.
Where I do get annoyed is when things are depicted in such a way that they are woefully inaccurate and misleading. That to me is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer and the memory of the real people being depicted.
And, of course, creates a "false" history of real events.
croyde said:
When I was a young lad working in a furniture store, my manager used to be a pilot of a large bomber in WW2.
Can't remember the exact aircraft as this was over 43 years ago now.
He was 21 when he was a captain in charge of a crew and flying an aircraft over enemy territory.
One of my sons is 21 and I wouldn't put him in charge of a wheel barrow.
Can't remember the exact aircraft as this was over 43 years ago now.
He was 21 when he was a captain in charge of a crew and flying an aircraft over enemy territory.
One of my sons is 21 and I wouldn't put him in charge of a wheel barrow.
ive got 3 months free Apple TV, this is definitely getting binge watched
I still remember watching Memphis Belle as a kid, i was 8 when released in 1990!
Skii said:
I'm in the minority here of being a big fan of the series so far, however I was a little disappointed to see them flying B17F's in 1944, given the attention to detail up to this point.
I thought it was still in 1943 so far and the G hadn't. been introduced. Even when they were the F continued until the were shot down or the Gs were available Smollet said:
Skii said:
I'm in the minority here of being a big fan of the series so far, however I was a little disappointed to see them flying B17F's in 1944, given the attention to detail up to this point.
I thought it was still in 1943 so far and the G hadn't. been introduced. Even when they were the F continued until the were shot down or the Gs were available The F and G were very similar as far as capability is concerned i.e. range, bomb load etc.
Where the G was an improvement was the fitting of the chin turret and the staggering of the waist gunner positions to give the waist gunners a bit more room. Later Gs had a slightly bigger tail gunner's position too (referred to as the "Cheyenne Turret" because they were first fitted to B-17s coming off the Cheyenne production line).
Where the G was an improvement was the fitting of the chin turret and the staggering of the waist gunner positions to give the waist gunners a bit more room. Later Gs had a slightly bigger tail gunner's position too (referred to as the "Cheyenne Turret" because they were first fitted to B-17s coming off the Cheyenne production line).
WrekinCrew said:
Smollet said:
Skii said:
I'm in the minority here of being a big fan of the series so far, however I was a little disappointed to see them flying B17F's in 1944, given the attention to detail up to this point.
I thought it was still in 1943 so far and the G hadn't. been introduced. Even when they were the F continued until the were shot down or the Gs were available Eric Mc said:
The F and G were very similar as far as capability is concerned i.e. range, bomb load etc.
Where the G was an improvement was the fitting of the chin turret and the staggering of the waist gunner positions to give the waist gunners a bit more room. Later Gs had a slightly bigger tail gunner's position too (referred to as the "Cheyenne Turret" because they were first fitted to B-17s coming off the Cheyenne production line).
Apparently the G model arrived without the ability to feather props and they removed the engine fire extinguishers! https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/versionen/b-17g/Where the G was an improvement was the fitting of the chin turret and the staggering of the waist gunner positions to give the waist gunners a bit more room. Later Gs had a slightly bigger tail gunner's position too (referred to as the "Cheyenne Turret" because they were first fitted to B-17s coming off the Cheyenne production line).
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff