• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Dunkirk Question

E

Eoraptor1

SOH-CM-2022
OK, I'm probably the last person on the forum to see this movie, but I finally did; I got it as a gift last week. One question: Why were the Spits flying in their Vic only 500 feet above the English Channel? It would seem like this is screaming to any hotshot 109 pilot "Come shoot me". Is this something historical or just showbiz? I don't know enough about the air battle over Dunkirk to know the difference. Thanks in advance.


JAMES


PS Is that Michael Caine's voice as Fortis Leader?
 
Early in the war, during the Norway and France campaign, the Brits would fly in tight formation, assuming that this would increase their fire "punch". GAF, with the experience gained in Spain, was already using loose formations of two (rotte) or four (schwarm) aircraft, Dunkirk was the end of the battle of France and, progressively, the RAF would adopt similar formations for the BoB.
 
hubbabubba said:
Early in the war, during the Norway and France campaign, the Brits would fly in tight formation, assuming that this would increase their fire "punch". GAF, with the experience gained in Spain, was already using loose formations of two (rotte) or four (schwarm) aircraft, Dunkirk was the end of the battle of France and, progressively, the RAF would adopt similar formations for the BoB.
Click to expand...



Hubbabubba,
It seemed odd to me that they put on and kept their oxygen masks on nearly all time. Even at very low altitudes. I thought most engagements were fought in mid altitudes and oxygen masks were not necessary. Or was wearing the masks done for dramatic effects for the movie?

 
AussieMan said:
The masks also contained the microphone for the radio.
Click to expand...

It would have been simpler if these came about earlier in the war. I remember many movies where the pilots wore their masks off to the side of their face and moved it into position to talk. 12 O'clock High got it right with the use of throat mikes for the b-17 crews.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • throat mike.jpg
    throat mike.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 0
hubbabubba said:
Early in the war, during the Norway and France campaign, the Brits would fly in tight formation, assuming that this would increase their fire "punch". GAF, with the experience gained in Spain, was already using loose formations of two (rotte) or four (schwarm) aircraft, Dunkirk was the end of the battle of France and, progressively, the RAF would adopt similar formations for the BoB.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering. I knew that part, hubba. What I was wondering was why they were flying at such a low altitude. Was there a reason for that? It seems they'd be really disadvantaged.

JAMES
 
MrZippy said:
It would have been simpler if these came about earlier in the war. I remember many movies where the pilots wore their masks off to the side of their face and moved it into position to talk. 12 O'clock High got it right with the use of throat mikes for the b-17 crews.
attachment.php
Click to expand...
I know the throat mike was pretty big in WWII, BUT: The B-17's flew pretty high most of the time, so the crews had to be wearing their masks for most of the mission, no?
The fighter pilots tended to change altitude rather dramatically during a dogfight. I would think they'd keep their masks on so they didn't accidentally go above the hypoxia ceiling, movies be darned. Masks always get removed in the movies so they can hear the pilots say their lines.
Think Top Gun...

Nowadays, yes, the mike is in the mask, but more importantly, they keep their masks on from engine start to shut-down. It's an ejection thing. If the canopy fails to jettison before the seat does, the mask, and visor, help protect their faces from severe laceration. And yes, they can go out right through the canopy. Will, even if it fails to jettison, too. That seat is leaving the plane once the handles are yanked, one way or another.

Keep those masks on, gang! You never know when you have to eject from behind your computer, after all :biggrin-new:

Pat☺
 
Eoraptor1 said:
Thank you for answering. I knew that part, hubba. What I was wondering was why they were flying at such a low altitude. Was there a reason for that? It seems they'd be really disadvantaged.

JAMES
Click to expand...

I think it has much to do with artistic license here. But who really knows? Much aerial combat took place at 10+ along the Belgian border to intercept the bombers. But we can imagine a few late-comers deciding to fly low to catch-up with the fight. Climbing was time (an fuel) consuming.

In the movie, they paid dearly for that mistake.

I would think that, in a combat zone, the wearing of the mask was mandatory for RAF crew as they had no laryngophones/throat mikes.
 
Most aircraft present in the Dunkirk area were there for ground support. Strafing and tactical bombing was of course done from a much lower altitude than strategic bombing. So I think flying below 3000 ft must have been quite common.

There are many "comparisons" between the movie and what really happened. This is one of them: http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/dunkirk/

The shots in the city were actually taken in current Dunkirk. In the movie there wasn't much damage, in reality the city was severely damaged. I general I think it was much busier, both in the air as at sea, at Dunkirk than shown in the movie.

just my 2 cents,
Huub
 
The Spit near the end that ran out of fuel had a glide slope ratio that would be the envy of any sailplane manufacturer. I was waiting for him to gain altitude and head back to England but I guess they thought that would be a bit much.
 
Fortis Leader does indeed sound like Michael Caine , perhaps a small cameo for his role in The Battle of Britain movie .... Mike :running:
 
Flyboy208 said:
Fortis Leader does indeed sound like Michael Caine , perhaps a small cameo for his role in The Battle of Britain movie .... Mike :running:
Click to expand...


As for flying across at 500' that would be foolish in the extreme.

It is indeed Michael Caine in an uncredited cameo.
 
Dunkirk movie

Terry said:
The Spit near the end that ran out of fuel had a glide slope ratio that would be the envy of any sailplane manufacturer. I was waiting for him to gain altitude and head back to England but I guess they thought that would be a bit much.
Click to expand...

Hi all, I'm a bit late to the party but here is my 2 AUS cents worth - yes can't agree more with the above quote. As hubbabubba said "I think it has much to do with artistic license here".

Most of the aerial sequences were a bit of a laugh if you analyse them a bit - (spoilers alert if you haven't seen it yet)

- no, they wouldn't have flown over that low if they could help it, you would gained height over England where you wouldn't be attacked by Bf 109s as you did it, not wait until you reached the combat zone
- yes most of the actual air-to-air combat took place well away from the beaches at greater heights than shown in the movie
- no, you wouldn't have closed your canopy before ditching as you wouldn't want to be trapped in your cockpit (!)
- no, you wouldn't have a made a wheels down landing on a Channel coast beach where the "puddles" on the beach could easily be 3' deep (and you would have opened your canopy)
- no, you wouldn't have been able to see the detail looking down at your ditched wingman or a ship as you flew over them at well above stalling speed, as opposed to the movie shots from the drone at 20 mph
- if you look at the trailer given in the first post you'll notice the Spitfires go from sea level to above the clouds and back to see level in a few seconds
- I haven't spent the time to look it up, but I suspect the guns of a gliding Spitfire would not have fired at all? Not sure ...
- etc etc etc

So the one thing that really rings true is yes they would have worn the masks in order to use the radios.

Having said all that, I didn't let any of the above spoil my enjoyment of the movie and I hope everyone here at SOH enjoyed it too - after all it's a work of fiction, it's not a documentary.

Cheers,

SW
 
I was surprised about misuse of correct canopy procedures myself.
The "endless glide" at the end made me howl with laughter but as you say, ignore the catastrophic lack of realism and just enjoy the film.
 
I just found this new PBS Nova video about Dunkirk at their website. I missed it when it was on television, but fortunately they made the video available. Enjoy.

[video]http://www.pbs.org/video/great-escape-at-dunkirk-qb5qcr/[/video]

JAMES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top