tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post8606719657277204730..comments2024-03-28T10:44:41.756-05:00Comments on The War Movie Buff: 2015 WAR MOVIE SUBGENRE TOURNAMENT: Best Dogfighting Film War Movie Buffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-89021476520173094902015-03-30T09:54:14.430-05:002015-03-30T09:54:14.430-05:00Enjoyed it. Thanks.Enjoyed it. Thanks.War Movie Buffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-48130369826291001462015-03-30T09:16:05.409-05:002015-03-30T09:16:05.409-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02261339408253319279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-84015069512179550082015-03-29T19:18:44.090-05:002015-03-29T19:18:44.090-05:00Gee, I wonder if the bounties had anything to do w...Gee, I wonder if the bounties had anything to do with the inflated claims.War Movie Buffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-3009290360909302572015-03-29T17:10:10.788-05:002015-03-29T17:10:10.788-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02261339408253319279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-36633331826127844142015-03-29T15:16:58.260-05:002015-03-29T15:16:58.260-05:00I meant that if you disqualify the dive, shoot, an...I meant that if you disqualify the dive, shoot, and dive away technique for kills, that would seem to be a vague area that someone would have to make a decision on. It's a lot simpler to say, plane goes down, add a symbol to your plane. I understand what you are saying about the FT tactic resulting in inaccurate claims, but overclaiming is pretty much the norm in WWII air combat. Look at the differences between claims and reality for both sides in the Battle of Britain.<br /><br />I agree on the Dauntless. In five minutes at Midway, that plane changed the course of the war.War Movie Buffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-64841740910637695692015-03-29T11:49:38.813-05:002015-03-29T11:49:38.813-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02261339408253319279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-10884488474074907282015-03-29T09:28:55.442-05:002015-03-29T09:28:55.442-05:00Good stuff, as usual. Thanks. I do not have any ...Good stuff, as usual. Thanks. I do not have any problems with the use of Hellcats. What was the alternative? At least they look similar and the Hellcat is the big brother (although younger, of course). It's not the producers fault that none were available. Quite a shame because the F4F was arguably the most important warplane in the Pacific Theater. It does not get its just due. It was a bit disconcerting to see Korean War footage. And Hellcats with bomb bay doors!<br /><br />I read where the two technical advisers for FT were ground personnel who had been kicked out of the unit. That explains a lot. <br /><br />The 1943 timing of the movie did impact the accuracy. With the FT still operating, the filmmakers had security constraints. For instance, the cockpit interiors could not look like the real thing. This probably also explains the avoidance of any real characters. I did not see a lot of Chennault in Gordon. Chennault would chewed Gordon up and spit him out. Gordon also smiled.<br /><br />I have to disagree with your definition of dogfighting. I see where you are coming from, but that qualification would have made determining a legitimate kill very complicated. All is fair in love and war, right. You do what you got to do in air combat or you don't come back. One flaw in FT and a reason why Gordon does not really represent Chennault is there is no discussion of his tactics. Again possibly for security reasons. You would have been a suicidal fool to try to "Hell's Angels" style dogfight in a Warhawk against a Zero.<br /><br />As far as the katana scene, I agree that it was hilarious. Kids weren't coddled in the 1940s I guess. I feel sorry for any pets or neighborhood kids. Funnier to me was the kid glowingly referring to the "mud Marines". The screenwriters used the kid to balance the rest of the movie. War Movie Buffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-67036127751917581302015-03-29T09:06:23.430-05:002015-03-29T09:06:23.430-05:00I had read that Howard Hawks was encouraged to cla...I had read that Howard Hawks was encouraged to claim that FT copied his Only Angels plot (he decided against it). I have never seen that movie so I immediately looked it up to see if I should consider it for the tournament. Turns out it does not have dogfighting. The plot summary did not sound like FT. Apparently there are some similarities in subplots and characters. I am not familiar with "International Squadron".<br /><br /> I had also read about that John Carroll reference to Gable. I can see that. He even looks a bit like him. <br /><br />That Army complaint was certainly true and probably warranted especially early in the war. Of course, foot soldiers always have a tendency to gripe about the flyboys and one friendly fire incident is remembered longer than one hundred life saving close air support missions. There is no doubt fighter pilots were not interested in ground support. Not just because enemy hills bombed don't count towards ace status, but also they are actually more dangerous than air combat. Speaking of friendly fire, air support missions came with the risk of being fired on by your own infantry and tanks.<br /><br />The movie is accurate in its portrayal of the Marine Corps being open to CAS. This was partly attributable to the fact that Marine Aviation was more wedded to the ground forces than the AAF was towards its parent. The first A may have stood for army, but the AAF was already thinking of itself as the USAF. It should also be mentioned that the lack of efficient forward air control was a bigger factor in Europe because German targets were more temporary. Whereas in the Pacific, you could task a mission on a fixed position because of the nature of the fighting.<br /><br />Thanks for your input.War Movie Buffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999735218343872013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-8364869211706272082015-03-28T23:49:26.568-05:002015-03-28T23:49:26.568-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02261339408253319279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7201660899514011402.post-41990088213644258312015-03-28T20:25:37.570-05:002015-03-28T20:25:37.570-05:00Once, when "Flying Tigers" aired on Turn...Once, when "Flying Tigers" aired on Turner Classic Movies, the host (Ben Mankiewicz) said in the introduction that it borrowed a lot from "Only Angels Have Wings." Personally, I thought it was a lot more similar to "International Squadron," almost to the point of being an unofficial remake. That movie had Ronald Reagan playing basically the same character that John Carroll played in "Tigers." There was also some similarity to "Captains of the Clouds," with James Cagney. Apparently, there were a lot of arrogant hot shot pilots in WWII, carelessly causing fatalities, but then redeeming themselves by flying suicide missions. <br /><br />I think John Carroll was the actor they hired when it was a case of, "We can't afford Clark Gable, so get me a Clark Gable type." <br /><br />Re: dogfights (air-to-air combat) vs. close air support, I've heard Army men complain that the Air Force is less than enthusiastic about air support missions. Dogfights have a more glamorous image, and may be the fast track to promotion for fighter pilots. I don't know, though, if there are similar attitudes in the Marines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com