Masters Of The Air - Apple TV

[Smollet]

Skii said:

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

The Great Escape was March 1944.

Also Black Monday and the Berlin raids

Thanks. Obviously missed the change of year

[Jimbo.]

Eric Mc said:

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.

I’m surprised the P-47 lacked the range:
1) because I always thought something that big must carry enough fuel to get to the moon and back, and
2) being as big as it was, by the time the tail overflow the airfield perimeter, the front end was already most of the way to Germany!

[Eric Mc]

It was big because of the turbocharger ducting.

[Jimbo.]

Eric Mc said:

It was big because of the turbocharger ducting.

Aye, something I only learned recently despite being my favourite warbird ever since I was a child.

Must be a Republic thing: pick one part of the aircraft and make it so big you have to build the rest of the aircraft around it. See P-47 around the turbocharger, A-10 around the gun.

[Eric Mc]

The turbochargers of that era were pretty big pieces of kit. Fitting an airframe around one was a bit of a struggle. Their first attempt was the P-43 Lancer which was also rather tubby.

[Yertis]

Jimbo. said:

I’m surprised the P-47 lacked the range:
1) because I always thought something that big must carry enough fuel to get to the moon and back, and
2) being as big as it was, by the time the tail overflow the airfield perimeter, the front end was already most of the way to Germany!

There’s a whole debate, if you Goole around, about whether or not the Mustang was the game-changer it is claimed to be. But the simple fact is that the Mustang could get to Berlin and beyond, when no other fighters could.

[Eric Mc]

The P-51 is surprisingly big in its own right - especially compared to (say) a Spitfire, 109 or Fw190. It already had good fuel capacity even without the additional drop tanks.

[Hard-Drive]

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've not read this thread in case there are spoilers, but I am absolutley bloody gutted about MOTA. When I saw the trailer, I got all excited about it, but realised I'd never actually watched Band of Brothers, so I did that and it was absolutely excellent. It was so immersive I was almost ducking for cover, and all of the characters were just so believable.

As for MOTA (5 episodes in for me now...)

-It is SO "God Bless M'urica"...that is all!
-Crosby is the only character I feel any screen connection with so far, compared to BoB where I ended up almost feeling part of Easy Company!
-The RAF are portrayed like complete tossers...why is that? Why do the directors need to get so Pearl Harbour/U571 about things?
-As a plane geek/aviation nerd, I'm almost preferring the ground scenes! In the air scenes, the action cuts so quickly from one crew member, wearing a mask/helmet, to another in a totally different aircraft, by the time you've worked out who you are looking at, it's cut again. At least with Top Gun they had their callsigns on their helmets, could they not have given us a few clues who we are looking at in MoTA?

And don't even get me started on the CGI and flying. So unbelievably dissapointing. I am currently learning to fly, obviously I've never flown a B-17, but even I know that due to the basic principles of flight, an aircraft flying straight and level isn't going to start yawing around the normal axis so the thing is effectively flying backwards, something we saw twice in episode 5. Then we have feathered props that don't feather and continue windmilling, B-17s that bounce off cliff edges quite happily (if the Millennium Falcon bouncing off the ground scene in TFA was silly, this is just ridiculous), landings that are so hard the gear should be snapping off, and take off performance that seems to bear no relation to a fully fuelled/bomb loaded B-17, but rather more an empty A320 with the thrust levers pinned at the TOGA setting!

And I'm also not buying the flak damage. It looks like every leading edge/engine/cowling has just been absolutley peppered with flak, as if the effects team could'nt help themselves but say "oh, just a bit more here, and here, and here...". From pictures I've seen, I know the B-17s used to take ridiculous punishment, but the flak damage seemed to be much heavier but more localised, one big hole in the side or flying surface missing, rather than lots of little ones.

And as for the fighter scenes, they are sooooo manoeuvrable! I almost expect the dialogue to go like this...

"Waist gunner to pilot! Fighters! Two o'clock high"
"Pilot to waist gunner...how many, what type"
"Maverick to pilot...Fifth Generation Fighters"
"Pilot...whaaaat???"
"FIFTH GENERATION FIGHTERS!!!!!!"

Anyway, all very easy for me to rant, in English, sat at a computer. The bravery of the guys, from all nations, is staggering. Here's me looking forward to my next flying lesson for fun, yet these guys were literally rolling the dice every single time they went up. All it took was that one shot and you were either dead, bleeding, on fire, or parachuting your way to either a PoW camp or trying to escape an occupied country. It absolutely beggars belief, and I guess if the show has brought that home, it's mission accomplished, target hit.

But it's such a shame they didn't make the same effort they did in BoB to make it believable. My only conclusion is that in the 24 years since BoB was made, we've just caved in to the whole sensationalism/instant gratification/likes/shares/fake news/insta reels mentality and ended up with this. And that's a shame.

[Smollet]

Hard-Drive said:

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've not read this thread in case there are spoilers, but I am absolutley bloody gutted about MOTA. When I saw the trailer, I got all excited about it, but realised I'd never actually watched Band of Brothers, so I did that and it was absolutely excellent. It was so immersive I was almost ducking for cover, and all of the characters were just so believable.

As for MOTA (5 episodes in for me now...)

-It is SO "God Bless M'urica"...that is all!
-Crosby is the only character I feel any screen connection with so far, compared to BoB where I ended up almost feeling part of Easy Company!
-The RAF are portrayed like complete tossers...why is that? Why do the directors need to get so Pearl Harbour/U571 about things?
-As a plane geek/aviation nerd, I'm almost preferring the ground scenes! In the air scenes, the action cuts so quickly from one crew member, wearing a mask/helmet, to another in a totally different aircraft, by the time you've worked out who you are looking at, it's cut again. At least with Top Gun they had their callsigns on their helmets, could they not have given us a few clues who we are looking at in MoTA?

And don't even get me started on the CGI and flying. So unbelievably dissapointing. I am currently learning to fly, obviously I've never flown a B-17, but even I know that due to the basic principles of flight, an aircraft flying straight and level isn't going to start yawing around the normal axis so the thing is effectively flying backwards, something we saw twice in episode 5. Then we have feathered props that don't feather and continue windmilling, B-17s that bounce off cliff edges quite happily (if the Millennium Falcon bouncing off the ground scene in TFA was silly, this is just ridiculous), landings that are so hard the gear should be snapping off, and take off performance that seems to bear no relation to a fully fuelled/bomb loaded B-17, but rather more an empty A320 with the thrust levers pinned at the TOGA setting!

And I'm also not buying the flak damage. It looks like every leading edge/engine/cowling has just been absolutley peppered with flak, as if the effects team could'nt help themselves but say "oh, just a bit more here, and here, and here...". From pictures I've seen, I know the B-17s used to take ridiculous punishment, but the flak damage seemed to be much heavier but more localised, one big hole in the side or flying surface missing, rather than lots of little ones.

And as for the fighter scenes, they are sooooo manoeuvrable! I almost expect the dialogue to go like this...

"Waist gunner to pilot! Fighters! Two o'clock high"
"Pilot to waist gunner...how many, what type"
"Maverick to pilot...Fifth Generation Fighters"
"Pilot...whaaaat???"
"FIFTH GENERATION FIGHTERS!!!!!!"

Anyway, all very easy for me to rant, in English, sat at a computer. The bravery of the guys, from all nations, is staggering. Here's me looking forward to my next flying lesson for fun, yet these guys were literally rolling the dice every single time they went up. All it took was that one shot and you were either dead, bleeding, on fire, or parachuting your way to either a PoW camp or trying to escape an occupied country. It absolutely beggars belief, and I guess if the show has brought that home, it's mission accomplished, target hit.

But it's such a shame they didn't make the same effort they did in BoB to make it believable. My only conclusion is that in the 24 years since BoB was made, we've just caved in to the whole sensationalism/instant gratification/likes/shares/fake news/insta reels mentality and ended up with this. And that's a shame.

Good post. No one here doubts the bravery of these aircrew. It's a shame the production team didn't buy into it a bit more. All they've done is lessen their achievements with Hollywood hype. Such a shame.

[coppice]

The single thing that makes me respect the young men who flew these missions , regardless of their nationality or plane type was not that they were brave superheroes , extraordinary men apart from mere mortals like us. They were ordinary , often very young indeed , a long way from home and from every walk of life - salesmen , architects, accountants and farm boys . What they did was rendered all the more extraordinary by their own unremarkability .

My uncle was called John Keys and he was from Brisbane ,where he'd trained as an engineer , with a probably predictable life of work , marriage and kids in front of him . But he came 12,000 miles by ship to England , trained as a flight engineer and flew in Wellingtons . His plane was shot down and ditched - and he was rescued . He graduated to Halifaxes , flying from bases close to where I am in North Yorkshire, but was shot down over Picardy in 1944 and died with his comrades . He is buried in a village cemetery , a few feet away from Joseph Mynarski , who was awarded a posthumous VC . .

He was an ordinary young man and my late mum adored him . He wasn't a gung ho hero, he wasn't superhuman - he was like us. His only legacy is that I am named after him . And that is a privilege .

He's better looking than me too - forever young

[Eric Mc]

Well said.

I am sure those few that are left are rather shocked with the way they are sometimes depicted in modern war movies - especially American ones.

[unrepentant]

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.

My Grandfather was a navigator on Lancasters and before that Stirlings. He was 29 when the war started and considered an old man. I have one of his logbooks from 1943 and it's pretty chilling stuff.

If you look at Guy Gibson it underlines the age issue. He rose to the rank of Wing Commander, received the VC, DFC and Bar, DSO and Bar, flew bombers and fighters, was operational in 83, 29 and 106 Squadrons before leading the Dam Busters raid as leader of 617 Squadron, died the following year in a Mosquito over Holland having completed 170 war time operations. He was 26 when he was killed.

Makes you think doesn't it.

[Smollet]

coppice said:

The single thing that makes me respect the young men who flew these missions , regardless of their nationality or plane type was not that they were brave superheroes , extraordinary men apart from mere mortals like us. They were ordinary , often very young indeed , a long way from home and from every walk of life - salesmen , architects, accountants and farm boys . What they did was rendered all the more extraordinary by their own unremarkability .

My uncle was called John Keys and he was from Brisbane ,where he'd trained as an engineer , with a probably predictable life of work , marriage and kids in front of him . But he came 12,000 miles by ship to England , trained as a flight engineer and flew in Wellingtons . His plane was shot down and ditched - and he was rescued . He graduated to Halifaxes , flying from bases close to where I am in North Yorkshire, but was shot down over Picardy in 1944 and died with his comrades . He is buried in a village cemetery , a few feet away from Joseph Mynarski , who was awarded a posthumous VC . .

He was an ordinary young man and my late mum adored him . He wasn't a gung ho hero, he wasn't superhuman - he was like us. His only legacy is that I am named after him . And that is a privilege .

He's better looking than me too - forever young

My concern is most of the young these days has a sense of entitlement rather than duty.
My dad was a Catalina pilot and for a while was copilot to John Cruickshank VC

[Siko]

Smollet said:

My concern is most of the young these days has a sense of entitlement rather than duty.
My dad was a Catalina pilot and for a while was copilot to John Cruickshank VC

Amazing….lovely pic of your dad too. I hope you still have his logbook (s). I think Cruikshank is still alive amazingly. Just out of interest did your dad ever fly out of Scatsta in the shetlands?

[Hill92]

Adam. said:

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

VIII Fighter Command in the first half of 1944 was transitioning from purely defensive close escort to taking the offensive against the Luftwaffe wherever they were to be found. It wasn't an overnight change but depended how aggressive/conservative the commanders of the fighter groups were.

There was more to escorts than just top cover. Some fighter groups would be assigned as top cover while others were close escort and later in 1944 as fighter sweeps far ahead of the bombers. Typically fighter groups comprised three squadrons each with 2 (and later 3 sections) of 4 fighters. When flying as close escort, one squadron would fly 4,000 feet above the bombers while the other two squadrons would fly in front and at the side on the same level (bearing in mind that the combat boxes of the bomber formation were themselves at different levels).



Fighter groups operated in escort relays: rendezvousing with their assigned bomber formations and escorting for a short part of the journey before being relieved by the next fighter group, often going to the deck to strafe targets of opportunity before heading home if they hadn't already been engaged in aerial combat. Fighter groups had to approach the bombers to ensure they were rendezvousing with the correct bomber formation.

This mission report summary of the 351st Bomb Group for the 8 March 1944 raid on Erkner/Berlin (the mission featured in the latest episode) has bomber crews reporting P-51s flying through their formation.

http://351st.org/351stMissions/Mission090/Mission9...

From a production perspective, there is an inevitable need to also balance realism with showing the viewer what is happening. Small specks in the distance or extra scenes don't help to drive the story forward.

[coppice]

Smollet said:

My concern is most of the young these days has a sense of entitlement rather than duty.
My dad was a Catalina pilot and for a while was copilot to John Cruickshank VC

Nice picture.

I don't think young people have changed much at all actually . Young men think they are invincible and old men's love of power exploits that , as it always has done .

Ukraine shows us that 'cometh the hour, cometh the man ' (and women). I've spoken to young Ukraineans who are just like our kids - bit daft , love to mess around - but the same daft kids are now fighting, making drones etc

[Adam.]

Thanks Hill92

Very informative

[Beati Dogu]

Eric Mc said:

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.

A diagram of the relative ranges of allied fighters based in England:



The Mustang was a real game changer.

[wolfracesonic]

^ If you thought the ‘WWII bombers’ channel was detailed P 47-actual possible combat range

[Eric Mc]

The range of an aeroplane is not an absolute. How far a plane can fly depends on lots of factors. One of the key ones is how lean you can run the fuel mixture. Another is flying at low throttle settings. Fuel consumption rockets when you ram the throttle forward, as you would in combat.

Charles Lindberg did a lot of work in World War 2 trying to extend the range of fighters and bombers by working out optimal fuel consumption settings, especially in the Pacific theatre where there were vast tracts of ocean to cover.