Sorry, but that isnt what you said.  Your original post didnt say "they lost 25 bombers on one occasion".  Here's your quote--

Also, the 332nd  "Never lost a bomber" record was debunked as well... They lost at least 25... Then it was given the tag, "Never lost a bomber to enemy fighters".. That too, was dispelled... They lost several bombers to enemy fighters...    All this was done as late as 2006 through official USAF missing aircrew reports, debriefs, and eyewitness accounts, as well as German records...

Well, after reading it again, I can see where you thought I said that... I didn't mean to give the impresion that that the 332nd only lost 25 bombers, total.. I meant to write it so that it said that "the 332nd lost bombers, and lost at least 25 on one occasion"... 

That's simply NOT true... Nobody was flying escort into Germany, since nobody had the "legs" to do it.. P-47s were the only aircraft that the Red Tails had with dop tanks, and even then they only had about a 250-mile escort range..

 

This is incorrect, hans.  The P-51 first came on the scene able to escort all the way to Germany and back before the Red Tails began flying them.  Before 332nd FG began escort operations, there were other units flying those missions.  And their losses were higher.  Remember that the P-51D was not the first Mustang that was capable of long range escort duty.  The 332nd received Mustangs in July 1944, and the Merlin powered Mustangs began flying round trip escort missions in 1943.  In fact, the 354th FG was loaned to the 8th AF for escort duty, flying the P-51B, in late 1943 with Don Blakeslee as acting CO.  There is no doubt that the Mustang was flying long range escort before the 332nd was.

Yeah, I know about Blakeslee and Co... That was why they were called the "Pioneer Group"...  In fact, when they got the Mustangs, they were slated to fly a Ramrod before most of the pilots had even had a chance to fly the Mustangs they were given... Blakeslee said that they could "Learn to fly them on the way to the target"..  They also flew them without oxygen equipment... Ssince the first mission was to be at 15,000 feet, Blakeslee said to his pilots that, "You got no business being in this group if you need oxygen at 15,000 feet"..

I took your post to mean that nobody was escorting B-17s before the 332 did... My mistake.. 

But I still don't understand why all the "Never Lost a bomber" stuff still exists... It's just not true...

Yeah, as late as last night on Oliver North's "War Stories" on FOX Network they got that "never lost a bomber" claim in as part of the intro...too bad some folks feel they have to embelish the record of the 332nd, like "adjusting" the score of the one pilot from 4.5 to 5 kills.  I feel that it stands well on its own w/o having folks with a political agenda exaggerating what they accomplished.  It just reduces their real feats in value...

Right, my point exactly... I watched that show too.. Had to groan..

As far as the Air Force goes, it's probably a political correctness thing.. They have their image to worry about.. But The American Fighter Aces Association says Lee Archer is not an Ace, and that's that... (The Air Force also said that back-seaters were Aces too, during Vietnam, but that doesn't fly with the AFAA either... ) The Air Force may want to keep their image squeaky-clean, but the pilots themselves don't see it the the Air Forvce does, and since the AFAA is made up entirely of Aces, from all branchs, and their word means more than the Air Scouts in DC does...  So does Lee Archer's, who stated for the record that he never got five...

I have several of the Accurate Minaratures Red Tails that I picked up for a song from Hobby Lobby that look like they are great kits. Anyone build them? Look like real a real cupcake of a model to build.

Good morning!

Quite the debate we're having. I'd just like to remind everyone to be respectful of each other and not to attribute subtext to forum posts where none was intended. Also, do not use creative or alternate spelling for swearing/curses. We'll delete those posts when we find them. Remember, there are users of all ages, ethnicities, and sexes on these forums. Keep it clean and friendly for everyone.

I think we can all agree that the story of the Tuskegee Airmen is a compelling one, and that movies cannot get all of the facts correct simply due to the medium: Movies such as "Red Tails" (no matter how factually based) aren't documentaries, they are stories. Directors and producers aren't historians, they are entertainers. So, unless someone has something new to add in that regard, we've ridden that horse's legs off. Let's move on.

Has the movie inspired anyone to build a Red Tail or one of the other aircraft depicted? How about family or friends? Any forum members know a Tuskegee Airman and care to share a story (what aircraft did he fly)? What about the aircraft weathering or details did you specifically like or dislike? Was there anything that you saw in the finished work that you'd like to replicate with your own models?

Regards,

TK

Manstein's revenge

I thought it was a Lucas film?  See, this is how historical innacuracies get started (in some cases)... 

their innacuracies are not limited to film. Lucas' studios made a WWII aircraft video game called "secret Weapons Over Normandy" in which the physics and flight handling were terrible...JU88s could turn as tight as spitfires. not so accurate

Hans von Hammer

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a fact for everyone to ponder--before the Tuskegee Airmen flew escort, bomber losses were much higher than they were with these pilots flying escort. Anyone can say what they want--in the end, these guys did one massively great job that wasnt being done before.

 

That's simply NOT true... Nobody was flying escort into Germany, since nobody had the "legs" to do it.. P-47s were the only aircraft that the Red Tails had with dop tanks, and even then they only had about a 250-mile escort range..

This is incorrect, hans.  The P-51 first came on the scene able to escort all the way to Germany and back before the Red Tails began flying them.  Before 332nd FG began escort operations, there were other units flying those missions.  And their losses were higher.  Remember that the P-51D was not the first Mustang that was capable of long range escort duty.  The 332nd received Mustangs in July 1944, and the Merlin powered Mustangs began flying round trip escort missions in 1943.  In fact, the 354th FG was loaned to the 8th AF for escort duty, flying the P-51B, in late 1943 with Don Blakeslee as acting CO.  There is no doubt that the Mustang was flying long range escort before the 332nd was.

 

 Not to take anything away from any other pilots, but someone here said something about how the 332nd lost "at least 25 bombers". Sad reality is that sometimes, more than that number were lost on a single mission, whereas the 332nd lost about that many total.

 

 

No, I said that the 332nd's record of "Never having lost a bomber" was wrong, and that on one occasion lost about 25 bombers to enemy action (flak and fighters), which then was changed to read that they, "Never lost a bomber to enemy fighters", which was challenged and (the claim) found to be wrong again as late as 2006, using eyewitness reports, USAF Missing Air Crew Reports, and WW2 Luftwaffe records...

Sorry, but that isnt what you said.  Your original post didnt say "they lost 25 bombers on one occasion".  Here's your quote--

Also, the 332nd  "Never lost a bomber" record was debunked as well... They lost at least 25... Then it was given the tag, "Never lost a bomber to enemy fighters".. That too, was dispelled... They lost several bombers to enemy fighters...    All this was done as late as 2006 through official USAF missing aircrew reports, debriefs, and eyewitness accounts, as well as German records...

In addition to that, the USAF investigated the combat reports in 2006, and the final report was released in 2007.  The report said that the USAF determined that the 332nd FG lost 25 bombers to enemy aircraft, with two more going down after damage from both e/a and ground fire so that it was impossible to tell if the e/a or the AAA did the fatal damage.  So this was not "on one occasion", it was their total record.  And yet, as I already stated, the 8th AF losses were worse before the 332nd took on escort duties.....

And while I think it was pretty bad that the Tuskegee guys got treated the way they did, I'm not gonna suffer from any "White Guilt" over their treatment... Such was the law of the land at the time, and times have changed...  Besides, even with Truman's intergation of the Services, nothing changed as far as Jim Crow laws went, and their were plenty of instances of prejudice and unfair racial segregation going outside the military for black officers and enlisted men, even during the Korean War, and right up to Vietnam and the end of the Johnson Administration...

It is one thing to expect people to consider the hell those men went through from their own countrymen.  It is another thing entirely to expect people to have "white guilt", as you called it.  I expect the first.  I do not expect the second.  I feel no such guilt myself, I was not even alive at that time and I am not in the habit of feeling guilty for what someone else did.  Despite that, however, the race accusation still flies, even from someone in this very thread.  Even if you wish to say that the 332nd performed on par with the other groups, there was not one single other fighter group anywhere in US service at that time that had to deal with fighting their own people in this manner at the same time as fighting the enemy.  This is fact.  Morale is very important in units like these, and we can only imagine how it was for them.  It is not possible to consider the effectiveness of this group compared to others fully without accounting for this issue.  No other fighter outfit had to fight just to exist like that.

So most of the opinions here is it's worth going to see? I'm not real big on nitpicking a film unless it's just really out there- *cough cough* 'Pearl Harbor' anyone? But I'd said after 'Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith' that I'd I'd never give George Lucas another dime of my hard-earned money. Anyone that still thinks 'Plan Nine From Outer Space' is the worst movie ever filmed hasn't seen any of the Star Wars presequels.....

Dang! Iknew that!

Von Sisco

I believe on some level that is what Spielberg is trying to do, keep our military history alive.

Having seen it Friday night, I can say that while it may not be technically or historically accurate, it does tell a great story and keeps you entertained for a couple of hours. It was also good to see that there were young people in the crowd. Some may watch this movie and move on. For others, it may just begin an interest in WWII and history. I believe on some level that is what Spielberg is trying to do, keep our military history alive.

Hans von Hammer

 

No, I said that the 332nd's record of "Never having lost a bomber" was wrong, and that on one occasion lost about 25 bombers to enemy action (flak and fighters), which then was changed to read that they, "Never lost a bomber to enemy fighters", which was challenged and (the claim) found to be wrong again as late as 2006, using eyewitness reports, USAF Missing Air Crew Reports, and WW2 Luftwaffe records...

You missed Blackhawk Down and We Were Soldiers on the big screen?

Well the public seems to like the movie. Its the second most popular movie out this weekend.nd made more money than expected.

Lucas admitted it himself in the interview I saw when he said that this film is really the 'middle part' and it really needs a prequel and a sequel.

Now why in hell would Lucas ever try to use a movie-formula like THAT? *Grin*

Here's a fact for everyone to ponder--before the Tuskegee Airmen flew escort, bomber losses were much higher than they were with these pilots flying escort. Anyone can say what they want--in the end, these guys did one massively great job that wasnt being done before.

That's simply NOT true... Nobody was flying escort into Germany, since nobody had the "legs" to do it.. P-47s were the only aircraft that the Red Tails had with dop tanks, and even then they only had about a 250-mile escort range.. 

If I were to lay any "blame", the 8th and 15th AF Bomber Escort DOCTRINE was at fault, both directly and indirectly, by MG Carl Spaatz.. Under him, the 8th and 15th AF Fighter Commands had almost the same, exact issues that the Dicke Hermann & the Luftwaffe did in 1940 (and were consequently beaten back by the RAF) what with the fighters were being tied to the bombers and not allowed to do what fighters DO.. Hunt down the enemy fighters and destroy them with maximum use of firepower, speed, altitude, and violence-of-action... Tying fighters to bombers makes poor use of the asset..

This was solved, at least partially, by Jimmy Doolittle being placed in command of the 8th AF.. Doolittle and Spaatz had differing viewpoints of how the fighters should operate... In fact, behind Spaatz's desk was a sign that read, "Mission: Protect the Bombers"... Doolittle, upon taking over that office, put up his own sign, "Mission: Destroy the Luftwaffe"...

Doolittle wrote: 'Fighter pilots are usually pugnacious individuals by nature and are trained to be aggressive in the air. Their machines are designed for offensive action. I thought our fighter forces should intercept the enemy fighters before they reached the bombers.  (-italics and emphasis mine-HvH)

Spaatz on the other hand, was of the mind that while they were escorting bombers, 15th AF fighters were defensive aircraft and thus should remain tied to the bombers, both to break up attacks and to provide the bomber crews with some level of "comfort and morale" by being able to see the fighters with them... 

Such was the case with the MTO  bomber-crews, while at the same time the 8th AF bomber-crews thought they were getting the shaft at times, since they, more often than not, never saw the fighters, or saw only a squadron or two (who had the mission of catching any Luftwaffe "leakers") weaving back and forth over the bomber-boxes...

With that in mind, I wonder what the 332nd's record would have been like if they had been under Doolittle's command instead of Spaatz's, and were allowed to range forward of the bombers.. But we'll never know..

 Not to take anything away from any other pilots, but someone here said something about how the 332nd lost "at least 25 bombers". Sad reality is that sometimes, more than that number were lost on a single mission, whereas the 332nd lost about that many total.

Sprue-ce Goose

I dont think any P-51 pilot was ever concerend with the armament equation of his aircraft vs. an enemy's. Yes the 262 was difficult to get at a disadvantage, but many fell to piston aircraft, and not all of those on take off or landing.

 

Many Me-262 losses in combat were, from what I understand, due to a combination of

1- German pilots trying to dogfight with piston engine aircraft rather than use the 262's straight line speed advantage

2- German turbojet sensitivity to quick throttle manipulation ( flame-out )  - the opposite of what could be done in a piston engine aircraft. Very hard to resist slamming the throttle forward in the heat of combat. 

Makes perfect sense to me. And it would happen again on occasion in Korea and Vietnam. At least as far as jets trying to get into a turning fight with slower more nimble piston engined aircraft.  But like the myth of the Tuskeegee's never losing a bomber they escorted to enemy fighters (still losing only 25 is pretty good, and I must wonder were the TA's the onloy escorting Fighter Group on a mission?) the 262, as time goes on, is acquiring an aura of invincibility that are not in keeping with the facts. Such as the fact that the Tuskeegee were credited with three Me-262s downed on March 24 1945.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-070207-059.pdf

With the new Tamiya P-51's and ultra-detailing, I'd like to see a Red Tail done well at the Nationals in Orlando this year.

Reasoned

 

Sprue-ce Goose:

 

 

Producers depend upon audience ignorance.

 

 

 

Like expecting a fighter A/C with (6) 50cals (not discounting as potent as they may be) going straight at an A/C with (4) 30mm cannon, taking multiple hits and still flying?

I was thinking more of the CGI aircraft "flying" as though the laws of physics did not apply- I'm thinking specifically about Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion.....

Too many "aircraft" in modern movies fly as though their velocity and mass are not considered.

Producers also depend upon a modern audience's ignorance of history.

stikpusher

 

Reasoned:

 

 

Sprue-ce Goose:

 

Producers depend upon audience ignorance.

 

 

Like expecting a fighter A/C with (6) 50cals (not discounting as potent as they may be) going straight at an A/C with (4) 30mm cannon, taking multiple hits and still flying?

 

 

I dont think any P-51 pilot was ever concerend with the armament equation of his aircraft vs. an enemy's. Yes the 262 was difficult to get at a disadvantage, but many fell to piston aircraft, and not all of those on take off or landing.

Many Me-262 losses in combat were, from what I understand, due to a combination of

1- German pilots trying to dogfight with piston engine aircraft rather than use the 262's straight line speed advantage

2- German turbojet sensitivity to quick throttle manipulation ( flame-out )  - the opposite of what could be done in a piston engine aircraft. Very hard to resist slamming the throttle forward in the heat of combat.

Reasoned

Sprue-ce Goose:

Producers depend upon audience ignorance.

 

Like expecting a fighter A/C with (6) 50cals (not discounting as potent as they may be) going straight at an A/C with (4) 30mm cannon, taking multiple hits and still flying?

I dont think any P-51 pilot was ever concerend with the armament equation of his aircraft vs. an enemy's. Yes the 262 was difficult to get at a disadvantage, but many fell to piston aircraft, and not all of those on take off or landing. Yes its' 30mm Mk 108s were devestating when they hit, but theyhad a slow rate of fire and when coupled with shooter and target movement rarely score more than a few hits in any burst.

Sprue-ce Goose

Producers depend upon audience ignorance.

Like expecting a fighter A/C with (6) 50cals (not discounting as potent as they may be) going straight at an A/C with (4) 30mm cannon, taking multiple hits and still flying?

F-8fanatic

...........  Its funny how we dont see half this much complaining when it came to other aviation movies, but we see it here.  Top Gun has got to be the single absolute worst piece of hollywood fluff ever to be put on film.  But we dont see any heated debates about how a Tomcat couldnt get that close to an F5 while flying inverted or their vertical tails would hit....or anyone complaining about how Goose could not have impacted the canopy after ejecting because the canopy would not have remained hovering in place directly above the cockpit like that.  ..........

LOL............you must not have attended IPMS meetings back then. People complained about the lack of accuracy.

Producers depend upon audience ignorance.

Considering how little knowledge of WWII there is out there to today in the US general population, just making folks aware of it is a great start.

They did not win the war by themselves- neither did E Co. 2/506th PIR, or C Co. 2nd Rangers. But they played a part in helping to win the war.

bbrowniii

I saw the movie yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. Was the acting out of this world? No. Was the story 'cliche' at times? Yes. Were there things that bugged me (like why is it that every plane that got shot down, especially B-17s, lost a wing?)? Sure. Still I enjoyed it and, judging from the reaction of other people in the theater, so did the majority of people there.

Yeah, having just saw it I must say the kids liked it but accurate? Nope, just go with the mind set of being entertained, if not educated.

Talking about books, I read a book called, "Nancy."  It was written by a P-39 pilot in the South Pacific.  He mensions seeing a Japanese plane, but never shot one down.  I found this the most compelling air war book I ever read.  I don't remember the authors name and I don't know if it is still in print.  It is a love story between a pilot and his plane.

But, but, but... It's got Airplanes, real or not.  I LIKE AIRPLANES, LOTS OF AIRPLANES. NO, MILLION OF TONS OF AIRPLANES,  who cares about the acting and scripts?  I LIKE AIRPLANES.  FJ

I worked with a former Tuskegee airman named Winslow, who died some time ago.  His son wrote for Little Richard.  Fred Jack

BUT IT IS A BIG DEAL.  Can you imagine how much money was spent on takes and retakes of just that one scene?  Do you?  Fred What's his name.

Manstein's revenge

 

  I don't often see or read about fighter pilots from WW2 who were not succesful in shooting down enemy a/c....there just isn't much market for them...You may not like it of think its "fair" but that's just the way it is.

 

this is sad, but true. its not just with fighter pilots though...most stories you will read about units, individual infantrymen, tank commanders, ships, etc. are only ones that either recieved the Medal of Honor (or Knights Cross, Hero of the Soviet Union etc), or their units were recognized or awarded as a whole.......granted, im not saying they should be ignored, not at all. but the stories men that dont have those awards are just as important. and the stories of the men who didnt come back are just as important. 3 of my Great Grandfathers served in WWII, two for the U.S. and one for the Germans. my fathers fathers father was a tanker in Patton's 3rd army, my mothers fathers father was an Infantryman in the "Big Red One" and my mothers mothers father served in the German 25th Panzer Division. this made a pretty interesting "family history" project at school lol. my mothers mother has my German Great-Grandfather's journals and translated them all for me so i could read them. when you read in a history book that "Late in the war, the Germans were desperately short of supplies" that really doesn't tell you much. when you read in a soldiers diary that the only time in the war his tank had more than 60% of its ammunition was when it shipped out for combat...or than his tank never had more than half a tank of fuel at any point in time...or that the co-axial MGs were put in place just for looks and anti-aircraft Mascheinengewhers were often never issued simply because they didnt have the ammunition to give you for them (throwing it at an attacking aircraft wouldnt do much good) i never thought i'd have a story like this linked with my family.

F-8fanatic

Manstein's revenge:

 

F-8fanatic:

 

Have you ever heard Bud Anderson or any other WWII ace speak?  They dont say "Hi, I'm Bud Anderson, I shot down 16 and a quarter planes in WWII, how are you?"   

 

Frankly, the reason he, and other aces, do speak on the lecture circuit is because they were successful fighter pilots---that is, they are aces...And, yes, those guys are almost ALWAYS introduced as fighter aces and it is ALWAYS part of their bio when they are written about...why do you want to diminish their success?  I don't often see or read about fighter pilots from WW2 who were not succesful in shooting down enemy a/c....there just isn't much market for them...You may not like it of think its "fair" but that's just the way it is.

 

wow, what a cherry-picking job you just did there.  Look, dont take this so personally, but geez you really need to slow down.  Try reading what I posted again....you will see that I made a clear distinction between what OTHER PEOPLE say and what THEY SAY about themselves.    you then reply with "look what IS WRITTEN ABOUT THEM and look at how SOMEONE ELSE INTRODUCES THEM"....

Tell me, what exactly does that have to do with how they speak of themselves?  You even went as far as to get all sarcastic with another member here about how kills are recorded.  There is no need for you or anyone else to come in here with such a chip on their shoulder and talk to people that way....I dont care how long youve been here or what kind of models you build.  You dont get the right to get all sarcastic and talk down to people like you know it all, so do us all a favor and give it a rest already.  your definition of  "successful fighter pilot" is "ace".  That is only one facet of what those boys were sent off to do in that war.  And they speak on the lecture circuit because of what other people say about them, NOT how they describe themselves.  By your definition, all the fighter pilots that flew more mud-moving missions are failures because they are not "aces".  Every photo-recon plane that was converted from a fighter airframe had a fighter pilot at the controls...were the Photo Lightning drivers all failures too because they werent aces?

Your position that success" means "ace" is very narrow-minded.  That isnt an insult--its a FACT.  For much of the war, top cover pilots were ordered to stay closer to the bombers, to drive away the attacking fighters--and every life those pilots saved makes them a success.  Dont think so?  Tough--they were given a mission and they accomplished it.  As already known, a fighter pilot was tasked with a lot more than shooting down 109s.  Hell, for many of the Tuskegee Airmen, they spent the majority of their combat time in Italy, not having rotated to the front lines like everyone else did, and so they didnt see very many Luftwaffe planes at all to begin with.

 

And to clarify, I did not make a "qualitative" judgement on whether any "red-tails" were aces or not, just brought up the historical fact...and there seems to be some debate on that point...I couldn't care less myself, other than discussing it from a historical perspective...I am begining to belive that you, and some others, are subtly implying a race issue surrounding anyone who brings up this one point in conversation regarding the red-tails' history  and I certainly am offended by that...

 

wow, really??  So youre going to try to play race now? Are you kidding me??  I posted in this thread for one reason--because you acted like you had the right to get sarcastic with people when you dont.  nothing more, nothing less.  Aside from that, I am every bit as entitled to my point of view as you think you are to yours.  AT NO TIME did I say, imply, infer, or anything else even remotely close to what you just claimed.  Someone speaks FACTUALLY against your post because they disagree with some of your comments, and you come back with a racist accusation?? 

Tell you what, rather than trying to make up a position that I dont even have and never even came anywhere close to stating, why not address the FACTS as I presented them?  you would have gotten a whole lot farther....as it is, you just lost a great deal of respect.  I dont care what color anyone is, I have NEVER been a race-driven person....and I am not going to sit here and watch you falsely claim otherwise.  Just because I recognize the fact that these men had to fight their own country at the same time as the enemy, that doesnt in any way mean I accused you of being a racist, so please get the hell over yourself and fast.  Race was NEVER part of this issue for me.....so whats the problem?  My facts shot holes in your flimsy logic, and this was all you felt you had left??  Look, pal, if the truth offends you to the point where you have to make things up because you cannot factually address the conversation, then thats on you.

Again, I am not diminishing what each and every service person did in the war (never said anything close to that), as each job was important.  However, successful fighter aces at that time, and now, were to a huge degree equated with successful airial combat = kills.  During the period the aces were the ones who received the lion's share of LIFE covers and medals...Again, you may think that these guys get more attention than they deserve, and that's your opinion and that's fine.  But they will be the ones who get interviewed for documentaries and shows and books, not the fighter pilot who flew 100 combat missions and achieved zero kills...you don't like that?  Write the show's producer---don't cry to me...

And If you don't like the term or concept of ace---take it up with the DoD--not me. Society has made the status of ace what it is, not me...you give me WAY too much credit...those guys take great pride in their combat successess, as they should, and aren't shy at all talking about them...and if kills weren't so important, the one "Red Tail" that, may/or may not have, achieved ace status wouldn't even have been debated and apparently "adjusted" by some accounts from 4.5 to 5.  Would you have that ace status taken away from him because you don't think its important?  Really?  

Let's see, "Top Gun"...you said that it didn't get the same treatment as far as nit-picking as this movie is getting.  Yes it did.  At least in my circles.  Of course the net as we know it today didn't exist so there was not a Forum where it was probably as obvious as this thread so that's just your perception. On top of it, it wasn't portrayed as a historical drama or even "based on true events", so in that sense it didn't set itself up for the same type of historical scrutiny, but it got it anyway...I remember having lively discussions at the time about how "fake" the dogfighting scenes were, as they took far too long and the distances were far too close for jet combat...so, yes, it did get scrutinized in that regard...

Okay, "I am Legend"...I see Will Smith as THE STAR of that movie, period...And if you don't believe me, look at the posters and trailers...he was billed by the studio as THE STAR.  Maybe you have a problem with him being the real star of that movie and not sharing equal billing with a dog.  I don't...

bbrowniii

 

DoogsATX:

 

And that means things like facing the same German ace over and over again. Or pilots based in Sicily flying cover for Berlin raids (huh?).

 

 

Actually, Doogs, I think this mission is accurately portrayed (well, up until the part where they start blasting 262s out of the sky like it was cool ). On March 24 1945 the Tuskegee Airmen flew a 1600-mile mission to escort bombers on a strike at a German tank factory outside Berlin. The movie seems to have gotten that piece of history pretty accurate.

Okay, true. Ramitelli was located in Foggia on the Adriatic coast. Not sure where I got Sicily from...I can swear it was mentioned early in the movie. 

I saw the movie yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. Was the acting out of this world? No. Was the story 'cliche' at times? Yes. Were there things that bugged me (like why is it that every plane that got shot down, especially B-17s, lost a wing?)? Sure. Still I enjoyed it and, judging from the reaction of other people in the theater, so did the majority of people there.

Maybe it was because I had seen the interview with Lucas, or maybe it is simply because I am pragmatic, but I got what I expected from this movie. I know that it is, first and foremost, an action movie, so liberties were taken with history. I also know that, as Doogs pointed out, the story is way too complex to tell in two hours. Lucas admitted it himself in the interview I saw when he said that this film is really the 'middle part' and it really needs a prequel and a sequel.

DoogsATX

And that means things like facing the same German ace over and over again. Or pilots based in Sicily flying cover for Berlin raids (huh?).

Actually, Doogs, I think this mission is accurately portrayed (well, up until the part where they start blasting 262s out of the sky like it was cool ). On March 24 1945 the Tuskegee Airmen flew a 1600-mile mission to escort bombers on a strike at a German tank factory outside Berlin. The movie seems to have gotten that piece of history pretty accurate.

So, all in all, I give the movie 1 and 1/2 thumbs up. I was entertained, and the movie goes a long way to telling a fascinating, and important, story.

Manstein's revenge

 

F-8fanatic:

 

Have you ever heard Bud Anderson or any other WWII ace speak?  They dont say "Hi, I'm Bud Anderson, I shot down 16 and a quarter planes in WWII, how are you?"   

 

Frankly, the reason he, and other aces, do speak on the lecture circuit is because they were successful fighter pilots---that is, they are aces...And, yes, those guys are almost ALWAYS introduced as fighter aces and it is ALWAYS part of their bio when they are written about...why do you want to diminish their success?  I don't often see or read about fighter pilots from WW2 who were not succesful in shooting down enemy a/c....there just isn't much market for them...You may not like it of think its "fair" but that's just the way it is.

wow, what a cherry-picking job you just did there.  Look, dont take this so personally, but geez you really need to slow down.  Try reading what I posted again....you will see that I made a clear distinction between what OTHER PEOPLE say and what THEY SAY about themselves.    you then reply with "look what IS WRITTEN ABOUT THEM and look at how SOMEONE ELSE INTRODUCES THEM"....

Tell me, what exactly does that have to do with how they speak of themselves?  You even went as far as to get all sarcastic with another member here about how kills are recorded.  There is no need for you or anyone else to come in here with such a chip on their shoulder and talk to people that way....I dont care how long youve been here or what kind of models you build.  You dont get the right to get all sarcastic and talk down to people like you know it all, so do us all a favor and give it a rest already.  your definition of  "successful fighter pilot" is "ace".  That is only one facet of what those boys were sent off to do in that war.  And they speak on the lecture circuit because of what other people say about them, NOT how they describe themselves.  By your definition, all the fighter pilots that flew more mud-moving missions are failures because they are not "aces".  Every photo-recon plane that was converted from a fighter airframe had a fighter pilot at the controls...were the Photo Lightning drivers all failures too because they werent aces?

Your position that success" means "ace" is very narrow-minded.  That isnt an insult--its a FACT.  For much of the war, top cover pilots were ordered to stay closer to the bombers, to drive away the attacking fighters--and every life those pilots saved makes them a success.  Dont think so?  Tough--they were given a mission and they accomplished it.  As already known, a fighter pilot was tasked with a lot more than shooting down 109s.  Hell, for many of the Tuskegee Airmen, they spent the majority of their combat time in Italy, not having rotated to the front lines like everyone else did, and so they didnt see very many Luftwaffe planes at all to begin with.

And to clarify, I did not make a "qualitative" judgement on whether any "red-tails" were aces or not, just brought up the historical fact...and there seems to be some debate on that point...I couldn't care less myself, other than discussing it from a historical perspective...I am begining to belive that you, and some others, are subtly implying a race issue surrounding anyone who brings up this one point in conversation regarding the red-tails' history  and I certainly am offended by that...

wow, really??  So youre going to try to play race now? Are you kidding me??  I posted in this thread for one reason--because you acted like you had the right to get sarcastic with people when you dont.  nothing more, nothing less.  Aside from that, I am every bit as entitled to my point of view as you think you are to yours.  AT NO TIME did I say, imply, infer, or anything else even remotely close to what you just claimed.  Someone speaks FACTUALLY against your post because they disagree with some of your comments, and you come back with a racist accusation?? 

Tell you what, rather than trying to make up a position that I dont even have and never even came anywhere close to stating, why not address the FACTS as I presented them?  you would have gotten a whole lot farther....as it is, you just lost a great deal of respect.  I dont care what color anyone is, I have NEVER been a race-driven person....and I am not going to sit here and watch you falsely claim otherwise.  Just because I recognize the fact that these men had to fight their own country at the same time as the enemy, that doesnt in any way mean I accused you of being a racist, so please get the hell over yourself and fast.  Race was NEVER part of this issue for me.....so whats the problem?  My facts shot holes in your flimsy logic, and this was all you felt you had left??  Look, pal, if the truth offends you to the point where you have to make things up because you cannot factually address the conversation, then thats on you.