I should also say Spielberg and Hanks were usually as close to the technical stuff as they could get. As an armor modeler and former history author on military technical subjects, I could easily spot the FV432-based StuG III G and T-55-based Jagdpanther in one episode, and the T-34-based Tiger I in another, but they tried and the effect …
I should also say Spielberg and Hanks were usually as close to the technical stuff as they could get. As an armor modeler and former history author on military technical subjects, I could easily spot the FV432-based StuG III G and T-55-based Jagdpanther in one episode, and the T-34-based Tiger I in another, but they tried and the effect was very realistic. In the Peleliu airfield scene in "The Pacific" they had two running perfect mockups of Japanese Type 95 light tanks and an M4A2 USMC Sherman. Today, 20+ years later, there are far more and better mockups being used in movies, but these guys led the way. I do not know what happened to "Masters of the Air", except to think that one, no one involved in the production of the series had any knowledge at all of aeronautics, aerodynamics, aircraft construction or combat damage. Didn't ANYONE watch at least some actual combat footage show how B-17s really behaved, or how they fell out of formation when hit, or what combat damage really looks like in a solidly-built bomber? What we got in most cases was damage that looked like crows had pecked at cake icing. And the blown-up planes gently drifting down, in an atmosphere churned to an invisible froth by hundreds of propellers - or wings separating from planes and flying alongside them in formation..... Or the ground shots where the flying control surfaces were not aligned correctly - it was all so sloppy, and a waste of excellent art set design and uniforms, vehicles and other paraphernalia that was done very well. Here's a YT video that show the better way to demonstrate this, an RC He 111: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjncVG2Ws5U See how even this small plane comes apart and how the pieces flip and tumble and the wing rotates around the heavy engine.....
Guys like us who know this stuff will always be disappointed to some degree. But think back to "Battle of the Bulge" where they used M-48 Pattons as German tanks!
The other thing that disappointed me was the miss on explaining, even in quick dialogue, some of the strategic and tactical things that affected the bomber war - nothing pretentious or didactic, just offhand comments by some officers who would have heard something - 30 seconds here and there setting a frame of reference. But I am a history nerd, so what the hell. I'm glad they made it, wish it had been better.....
I forgot to mention that the Wheatcroft Collection in England is currently restoring to running condition FOUR German Hetzers and several Panther tanks. Even stuff pulled out of rivers and bogs can be restored for display and this is being done more and more. Some of the European vehicle display meets have astounding numbers of well-restored vehicles of all types. Future movies may have the advantage of using the real McCoy.....
I should also say Spielberg and Hanks were usually as close to the technical stuff as they could get. As an armor modeler and former history author on military technical subjects, I could easily spot the FV432-based StuG III G and T-55-based Jagdpanther in one episode, and the T-34-based Tiger I in another, but they tried and the effect was very realistic. In the Peleliu airfield scene in "The Pacific" they had two running perfect mockups of Japanese Type 95 light tanks and an M4A2 USMC Sherman. Today, 20+ years later, there are far more and better mockups being used in movies, but these guys led the way. I do not know what happened to "Masters of the Air", except to think that one, no one involved in the production of the series had any knowledge at all of aeronautics, aerodynamics, aircraft construction or combat damage. Didn't ANYONE watch at least some actual combat footage show how B-17s really behaved, or how they fell out of formation when hit, or what combat damage really looks like in a solidly-built bomber? What we got in most cases was damage that looked like crows had pecked at cake icing. And the blown-up planes gently drifting down, in an atmosphere churned to an invisible froth by hundreds of propellers - or wings separating from planes and flying alongside them in formation..... Or the ground shots where the flying control surfaces were not aligned correctly - it was all so sloppy, and a waste of excellent art set design and uniforms, vehicles and other paraphernalia that was done very well. Here's a YT video that show the better way to demonstrate this, an RC He 111: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjncVG2Ws5U See how even this small plane comes apart and how the pieces flip and tumble and the wing rotates around the heavy engine.....
Guys like us who know this stuff will always be disappointed to some degree. But think back to "Battle of the Bulge" where they used M-48 Pattons as German tanks!
The other thing that disappointed me was the miss on explaining, even in quick dialogue, some of the strategic and tactical things that affected the bomber war - nothing pretentious or didactic, just offhand comments by some officers who would have heard something - 30 seconds here and there setting a frame of reference. But I am a history nerd, so what the hell. I'm glad they made it, wish it had been better.....
I forgot to mention that the Wheatcroft Collection in England is currently restoring to running condition FOUR German Hetzers and several Panther tanks. Even stuff pulled out of rivers and bogs can be restored for display and this is being done more and more. Some of the European vehicle display meets have astounding numbers of well-restored vehicles of all types. Future movies may have the advantage of using the real McCoy.....