discussion Historical innacuracies that get up your nose.

[Guest]

GAnother one in the program yesterday was that Duxford's 'Big Wing' delivered a 'hammer blow' to the Luftwaffe. The facts are that the Wing was ordered on 32 occasions. 9 times it failed to form up at all. Only 7 times did it actually engage in combat and only once did Bader and his men get to the attackers before other defending units. On that one occasion they shot down 8 bombers, not the 57 they claimed.

The Wing absorbed 5 squadrons from the relatively weak 12 Group and resulted in a shortage of fighter cover for important targets in the Midlands and East Anglia. It's hardly surprising that Dowding was consistently opposed to its use.

Cheers

Steve

Nice appreciation Steve. To many people including the makers of the Bader film were taken in. Leigh Mallory, Bader's boss, was weak and Bader took advantage not in any way knowing, includes Leigh Mallory, what Dowding and Park were up to. Park in my opinion was superb in hanging it all together. A great commander who should have been along side Eisenhower in Normandy not the other one. Name escapes me but another clever devil an RAF type who thought he could out think an Army Commander ie Montgomery.

Laurie

 

[stona]

Fiction is fiction and should not be confused with fact. The problem is that film audiences which are mostly ill informed about real historical events easily confuse what they see in films like 'Valkyrie', 'Red Tails' or 'U507' with historical facts. In fact they rarely bear any relation to historical reality at all.

There won't be many here who haven't enjoyed the 'Battle of Britain' film, and not just for Susannah York in her undies. It does however reflect the myth of the battle rather than the actual facts. It's a fun movie to watch (I have to squint at those Buchons pretending to be Bf 109s) but it's a work of fiction. I wouldn't want my children to 'learn' about the battle from the film.

It's an issue even for films which are far more rigorously researched. Relatively recent German films like 'Das Boot' and 'Der Untergang' (Downfall) are based on the best research available and attempt to give a historically accurate portrayal of events, but they are still works of fiction.

I don't think that it is fair to tar feature films and documentary films with the same brush. The former's primary function is to entertain and make a lot of money, the latters to educate whilst hopefully entertaining and making some money.

I can give the film 'Battle of Britain' a bit of leeway and enjoy the aeroplanes (real ones) zooming about as well as Susannah York in her undies. I don't see why I should do the same for a supposedly serious documentary of the same name made by the BBC.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

... along side Eisenhower in Normandy not the other one. Name escapes me.....Laurie

ACM Sir Arthur Tedder.

Cheers

Steve

 

[AlanG]

Thing is my kids school is showing films like pearl harbour and saving private Ryan to teach history the mind boggles

The first 20 mins of SPR I would say are quite true and realistic. Nothing wrong with that. The rest of the film..............

 

[Gern]

I can't argue the fact that a lot of films based on 'facts' or telling 'true' stories are rubbish, but we shouldn't totally dismiss fiction as a teaching tool.

There's a tale going round about someone who was reckoned by some to be the greatest teacher the world has ever seen - and he used fiction. Except in his day fiction was known as parables.

Gern

 

[stona]

Well Dave many great teachers have sought to teach complicated moral issues by using parables or even what we might call fairy tales. That's not quite the same as teaching history, which to me is a fact based enterprise, by showing works of fiction.

I don't mean different versions of history, wherein the facts might be differently interpreted, but just fiction in which the facts are ignored. For example the real history of the BoB is as exciting as any fictional version in the hands of a good teacher.

Cheers

Steve

 

[flyjoe180]

Lucas could learn from Fritz:

http://boomandzoomgraphics.com/fastfritz.html

 

[Guest]

O yes you can make history entertaining. It is the teachers who do that. But it is not the teachers responsibility it is the parents. QED.

If you want your children to understand the environment in which they are living then it is up to parents not to abdicate responsibility to others.

The history of Britain and if your family visit the continent is at every corner. Use your imagination to instil in them the treasures of what has gone before. Britain is lucky history just pours out of every corner of Britain. It is an exciting place to be.

The lochs of Scotland with salmon ladders, the beautiful lake district, the peaks, the downs, Dartmoor & Exmoor. These places just wait in expectation they are full of treasurers things you would never have thought. Every turn every visit there is something there. Just search and the rewards are there. That is how our family discovered Britain and France.

Britain is just the treasure of the world I find it just incredible. This is the way to make sure that their are no inaccuracies. It is the real thing.

Laurie

 

[Gern]

Ah Laurie, as an ex lorry driver (Not a 'proper' one mind, only up to 7.5t. I failed the medical for my Class 1 licence - I couldn't drink enough tea!) I know what you mean about our beautiful countryside.

Alas, I was only ever passing through. The haulage company I worked for did most of its work for a company that made large diameter water pipes and fittings. The only places I ever got to stop at were Water Treatment Works and Sewage Plants! It would take a REALLY good teacher to make those romantic and exciting!

Gern

 

[Guest]

Yes but you had one over most of us Dave. You now know all about Treatment & Sewage works. Something which has escaped most of us. Something to be missed better left to others

Laurie

 

[Gern]

Yes but you had one over most of us Dave. You now know all about Treatment & Sewage works.Laurie

Yep! Can't argue with that Laurie. I'd guess there are thousands of folks that would gladly swap their visits to England's beauty spots for my alternatives.

Gern

 

[Guest]

I'd love to tour the battle sites of Europe.

Maybe not the ones in Poland or Russia so much, but Germany, France, off Scotland at Scapa flow to see the wreck of the high seas fleet, etc..

Canada is so boring. I like it, don't get me wrong, it's been good to me as well, but there's not much going on.

My claim to fame is that my hometown (Halifax, NS) was blown up in WW1 in an ammunition explosion caused through human error. December 6th 1917, at just off 9 am. Second best besides Hiroshima, as the lore goes. It's why there is such solidarity between Boston and Halifax (That and I think we're the 2 biggest colonies of English loyalists in North America).

 

[Alan 45]

Been ill today so I've spent my time watching war films for reference , like 633 squadron for paint schemes for my mossy longest day for the D-Day SSIG and A bridge too far for a dio and I was amazed at the amount of inaccuracies in A bridge too far , uniforms , camo on armour now the film is 90% accurate events wise but it does go to show that even when they resurch them it's like the accuracy for equipment is an after thought

So I thought I'd watch the bride at remagen now apart from the tanks which I think are pattons it's not far off even the mock up of the hanomag is good although up close you can see it's cardboard.

 

[eddiesolo]

I think one issue with film makers in the 60's/70's/80's is that for military films there wasn't much in the way of military prop shops, so many items had that 'bodge' it will do, also lower budgets meant time in researching and sourcing was limited. Many yank WW2 films had uniforms and helmets from Korea including vehicles, many late 60's American trucks found there way into movies. I think it is getting better as there are proper set up props houses with teams that supply as near as damn it vehicles etc. But, even so, things are going to creep in when they have to bodge something.

Si

 

[stona]

things are going to creep in when they have to bodge something.Si

Absolutely true Si, but in the days before images could be made in computers there was often little choice. Take the BoB film. Many (most) of the real aircraft are not quite right, but an effort was made to make them look close. The full scale mock ups were pretty good, you can still see some at the BoB museum at Ashford, Kent. I suppose the R/C models are the old version of CGI. There were no Ju 87s flying in 60s (or now) so we get to see the exploding RC Stuka over and over again!

Cheers

Steve

 

[rickoshea52]

With the BoB films and lack of authentic Luftwaffe aircraft, isn't that because the RAF shot them all down?

 

[stona]

With the BoB films and lack of authentic Luftwaffe aircraft, isn't that because the RAF shot them all down?

Well between July and October the RAF and various anti aircraft units shot down something over 1,600 German aircraft.

Between 1939 and 1944 the Germans produced, according to the USSBS, 111,787 aircraft.

Despite leaving over 110,000 aircraft still to deal with I'd say that wasn't a bad effort in the summer of 1940

We had to leave some for the Americans when they finally decided to join in

Cheers

Steve

 

[Gern]

Don't say that Steve! Some film maker will have them shooting down all of the other 110,000!

Gern

 

[Alan 45]

Well I'm even more surprised it's been confirmed today that schools have been using blackadder and oh what a lovely war as reference material !!!

I think maniacs have finally taken over the asylum !