Post: #76

(07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  The Spitfire variant used in the film had only 6 .303 caliber machine guns.

Minor correction: the Spitfire Mk1 was armed with eight .303 machine guns.

---

(07-28-2017 02:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

The movie Battle of Britain is already one of the best war movies around due to its use of authentic bf-109s,Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Anyone else notice the Michael Caine cameo/easter egg/callback in Dunkirk? He was the Spitfire section leader (voice only, uncredited).

Nice touch, there, from Nolan, since MC also played a Spitfire pilot - a Squadron Leader - in the 1969 Battle of Britain movie, and - spoilers! - got shot down in that one as well.

Sidenote: satisfying, too, to see authentic British tactics portrayed in Dunkirk, in the form of the tight, three-plane 'Vic' formation. The RAF didn't adopt the looser 'Finger Four' [copied from Jerry] until later, and only after bitter combat experience. Got to love that sort of attention to detail.

---

(07-28-2017 06:02 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  Ridley Scott is apparently making the Battle of Britain movie.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/ap...ject-movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6736650/

Do want BoB remake, but I'm not sure how I feel about Ridley Scott's involvement, since the quality of his output has been patchy, at best, since Black Hawk Down and Gladiator.

Still waiting on Peter Jackson's Dambusters...

Post: #77

(07-28-2017 02:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

The movie Battle of Britain is already one of the best war movies around due to its use of authentic bf-109s,Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The BF-109s were not the correct variant. There's a difference in the shape of the engine area

For the German aircraft, the producers obtained 32 CASA 2.111 twin-engined bombers, a Spanish-built version of the German Heinkel He 111H-16. They also located 27 Hispano Aviación HA-1112 M1L 'Buchon' single-engined fighters, a Spanish version of the German Messerschmitt Bf 109. The Buchons were altered to look more like correct Bf 109Es, adding mock machine guns and cannon, and redundant tailplane struts, and removing the rounded wingtips.[14] The Spanish aircraft were powered by British Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, and thus almost all the aircraft used, British and German alike, were Merlin-powered. [Note 2] After the film, one HA-1112 was donated to the German Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr, and converted to a Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2 variant, depicting the insignias of German ace Gustav Rödel..

Post: #78

(07-29-2017 02:17 AM)Huxley Badkin Wrote:  [quote='dain_bramage' pid='1620094' dateline='1501227878']The Spitfire variant used in the film had only 6 .303 caliber machine guns.

Minor correction: the Spitfire Mk1 was armed with eight .303 machine guns.

That's right
Ahh.

Still, the firepower of that spitfire was not as potent as The BF-109 E

Armament

Guns:
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) synchronized MG 131 machine guns with 300 rounds per gun
1 × 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 200 rpg.[70]

or

1 x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 65 rpg (G-6/U4 variant)
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 underwing cannon pods with 135 rpg (optional kit—Rüstsatz VI)

Post: #79

Seems like Nolan literally lost the chance of adding actually "diverse" soldiers to the mix - those that truly were present at Dunkirk - not the women and blacks that the social justice press found missing.

I wonder why......

Post: #80

I'm tempted to see this film but I'm also worried I'll be dissappointed that the story of my paternal great grand-dad - who rescued a platoon of troops from Dunkirk with his fishing boat under enemy fire - won't be featured.

Post: #81

(07-29-2017 03:20 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  That's right
Ahh.

Still, the firepower of that spitfire was not as potent as The BF-109 E

Armament

Guns:
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) synchronized MG 131 machine guns with 300 rounds per gun
1 × 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 200 rpg.[70]

or

1 x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 65 rpg (G-6/U4 variant)
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 underwing cannon pods with 135 rpg (optional kit—Rüstsatz VI)

Cheers!

And, no dispute regarding the disparity in firepower. Apparently, it really was an issue (until the later, cannon-armed Marks of Spits and Hurris appeared). Unless they hit something really vital, the RAF pilots could riddle German aircraft with bullets and still have difficulty bringing them down.

But, as you say, just one or two cannon shells would do serious damage to a British plane.

Brutal business.

Post: #82

(07-29-2017 03:14 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

The movie Battle of Britain is already one of the best war movies around due to its use of authentic bf-109s,Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The BF-109s were not the correct variant. There's a difference in the shape of the engine area
<snip fighter porn>

While I don't disagree. The variant disparity I would consider a far lesser offense than replacing them with CGI.

Post: #83

(07-29-2017 07:03 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 03:14 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

The movie Battle of Britain is already one of the best war movies around due to its use of authentic bf-109s,Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The BF-109s were not the correct variant. There's a difference in the shape of the engine area
<snip fighter porn>

I see your point. I just can't handle it, lol.

While I don't disagree. The variant disparity I would consider a far lesser offense than replacing them with CGI.

Post: #84

I almost missed the chance to see this movie based on the poopooing some of the people here were making of it. The movie far exceeded my expectations and portrayed everything quite well.

Post: #85

The discussion on Dunkirk reminds me about how War movies are not allowed to be fun any more. The last I can remember are The Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes. I suspect the reigning narrative om war does not allow it to be portrayed humorously.

If I want war movies that convey the horror of war without trying to browbeat the audience I'll stick to Circle of iron and Wheels of terror.

Post: #86

Quote:USA Today’s Brian Truitt describes himself as a “shameless geek,” but oddly enough omits the fact that he is also just as shamelessly ignorant when it comes to the signaling of his own CorrectThink virtue. In his review of Dunkirk, director Christopher Nolan’s big-budget look (opening this weekend) at an actual historical event that took place in the early days of World War II, Truitt offers potential ticket-buyers the following trigger warning:

The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.

Well... This was expected. One another note... Dunkirk #1 in the box office.