Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Dam busters remake whats your opinion?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by dovergunner (U2879723) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
Today I read in the papers Peter Jackson is remaking the classic film any thoughts on this.
-
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
All the flying scenes will have to be Comp. done, as there are only two flying Lancasters in the world. Will it show the Americans doing it, instead of the Multinational crews that it was, or will it be a case of those nasty (If Mell Gibson is anywhere near it) British attacking all those poor Germans who had done no harm to anybody. The first was the best. The flying was done for real, by real pilots. Enough of the survivors were around to make sure that things were right. And what about N---- the dog. The P. C. brigade would have a fit.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
Oh, I just got blocked, because I typed in without thinking, the name of Guy Gibsons dog. Isn't that a bit over the top.
-
Message 4
Posted by boxtls (U3932198) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
What will they call Guy Gibson's dog.Can't even say it on this history message board.
-
Message 5
Posted by boxtls (U3932198) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
Got to agree with you Grumpyfred the first is the one and only.Cant think of many films were the remake is better?
-
Message 6
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 7th May 2006
Why does the historical presence of some word deserve blocking - try looking up a US TV producer called Tom W... Perhaps he is involved in this production? I wonder if the "right on" ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ think that people might be "offended" - or is it some software?
Of course, it does not matter that Hollywood will no doubt manage to downplay the sacrifices of those who were there. I gather that ...... Tom Cruise is actually making his film about the Battle of Britain. Perhaps the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ will get "offended" about that? -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 8th May 2006
Today I read in the papers Peter Jackson is remaking the classic film any thoughts on this.Μύ
I just hope that Mel Gibson won't have anything to do with it, otherwise it'll be a plot by Churchill to bring the USA into the war by staging a raid on the Hoover Dam.
Hopefully the crews will all be American except for one crewed by Brits (with possibly a Canadian and Australian) who cowardly turn tail and then get shot down over the North Sea.
Why am I not looking forward to it????
Cheers AA
-
Message 8
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 8th May 2006
What will they call Guy Gibson's dog.Can't even say it on this history message board.Μύ
Rebel? Rin Tin Tin? Snoopy? Lassie? No, got it, Snowy.
AA. -
Message 9
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Monday, 8th May 2006
If it's Peter Jackson it'll probably be excellent.
-
Message 10
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Sorry to pour cold water on this thread but according to a New Zealand newspaper's web site Peter Jackson has denied he is going to remake 'The Dambusters'
-
Message 11
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
The original is a good movie, maybe any remake will not capture the spirit and cameraderie of the time as well as the original one does.
Computer generated imagery would be good though - the dambusters is one movie that would benefit from that. -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 9th May 2006
Seeing as the original only touched on the contribution of the canadians and australians, almost any re make would have to be an improvement.
-
Message 13
Posted by The Earl of Suffolk (U1888243) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
I hope it isn't remade - Pearl Harbour was bad enough when the American pilot flew in the battle of Britain & the Brit sqn leader says to him "god help the Germans if all Americans are like you"!!!!!!!!!!!
Pass me the bucket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, the film about the enigma machine was shocking....you can imagine what will happen to the dam busters... -
Message 14
Posted by maraudingsaxon (U3567176) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Yeah chivers it will be u-571 with planes all over again.
-
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Except that 617 Sqn did have an American - McCarthy - who achieved a near success at the Sorpe. So long as they don't have him take out the Mohne Dam, it would be ok.
Of course, it might be difficult for Hollywood to explain away what he was still doing flying as a Flt Lt with the RAF in '43 rather than the USAAF (where, based on his fellow volunteers' records, he'd probably have been a colonel). Not sure I've ever read his reasons for staying in the RAF.
The original, unsurpassable as it is, chose to concentrate on the sacrifice, i.e. those who died, but in my opinion the film didn't neglect the mix of nationalities. Micky Martin is a very prominent character - possibly not surprising because he was one of the advisors and went on to be an (RAF) Air Marshal.
Jackson could do it rather well.
Wonder how cooperative the Germans would be over allowing the necessary photography of the dams - in the Good Old Days they used to get hacked off with British helicopters pretending to be Lancs! -
Message 16
Posted by Tulyar (U4032729) on Friday, 19th May 2006
Spare me please. I saw the film a couple of months ago at the local Arts Centre, verdict Brilliant and because the new super clean print had got lost in action we watched an old unadulterated print with a few glitches but the most important thing was the dog who remained the dog with his proper unadulterated name throughout. Incidently the dog acting the part was called that as well.
Altogether now Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da...... -
Message 17
Posted by Tulyar (U4032729) on Friday, 19th May 2006
Given Tom Cruises height he might be pleased to know that there was an American pilot with 609 White Rose squadron who was nicknamed Shorty, can't think why.
-
Message 18
Posted by Aldebaran (U3969750) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
First thought - it shouldn't be done. The orginal film was a classic even if the dam breaking scene was a bit "paint-on." Real Lanc's, with a definitive, mile-wide, British streak coursing through the film made it a real gem. No remake is going to beat that.
-
Message 19
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
Hi Yβaal,
Iβm not sure what all the comment is over. The movie or the event? If I remember correctly some Brit bombers bounced some bombs into a couple of dams? The result was more propaganda than actual damage. Did some Germans go thirsty or something? Why are yβaal so paranoid about American movies. There were Americans in the RAF, and the US Navy did capture a German submarine with up to date German navy codes.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 20
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
If Peter Jackson did do it (though it appears he isn't after all) I'm sure it would be excellent - but entirely unnecessary. The original was a classic. Also I find it hard to imagine a modern film, even with an historical setting, featuring WRAFs handing out mugs of cocoa. Without the cocoa it just wouldn't be the same.
-
Message 21
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
Au contraire - the WAAFs would be vital. Apart from anything else, modern films have to have a love interest, and I think there are few 617 anecdotes that could be worked up into something suitable!
But, on that theme, can anyone tell me why WAAFs were organising evacuees at the beginning of "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? I presume Disney just had a job lot of costumes marked "England (sic), WWII". (Great film, though) -
Message 22
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
Sorry, "a few"
-
Message 23
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
The Dambusters raid was important way beyond the damage, it sent signals to the US, (Bomber Command is serious), Stalin (we are doing what we can, sometimes imaginatively too), and of course the Germans.
It was also a significant morale booster at home.
Give Barnes Wallace a chance was also demonstrated, he would go on to develop the highly effective Tallboy as an example.
617 Sqn developed a nucleus of highly specialised people and units for precision attacks and pathfinding.
Bomber Command WAS more than carpet bombing, once the technology emerged.
They pioneered radar bombing (H2S equipped machines), ECM (jamming and chaff-then called 'window').
Peter Jackson, with his own money (i.e no interference) could do it.
And no 'test screenings' in front of a bunch of midwest teens.
A final thought on the WAAF's, a now retired work colleague did his 1950's National Service in the RAF.
He fondly remembers being kissed by a WAAF, 'Between the hangers'.
I'll get me coat......... -
Message 24
Posted by Aldebaran (U3969750) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
Hello Buckskinz
I don't think "paranoid" is the correct description in this instance. Its merely a discussion about whether it would be best to leave the status quo. As to cinamatography, well Hollywood has the habit of taking an inch and stretching it to a mile and rewritting factual history always with the USA looking real good in the process (even when events were quite the opposite). I note your comment about the US Navy capturing a U-boat. Are you perhaps referring to the action wherein an enigma machine and codes books were captured from U-110 by HMS Bulldog? If so you will note that this is most definately a Royal Navy achievment and occured in May 1941 - well before the USA joined World War 2. -
Message 25
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
On 4 June 1944, a hunter-killer group of the United States Navy captured the German submarine U-505. This event marked the first time a U.S. Navy vessel had captured an enemy vessel at sea since the nineteenth century. The action took place in the Atlantic Ocean, in Latitude 21-30N, Longitude 19-20W, about 150 miles off the coast of Rio De Oro, Africa. The American force was commanded by Captain Daniel V. Gallery, USN, and comprised the escort Carrier Guadalcanal (CVE-60) and five escort vessels under Commander Frederick S. Hall, USN: Pillsbury (DE-133) Pope DE-134), Flaherty (DE-135), Chatelain (DE-149), and Jenks (DE-665).
The task group itself was awarded the Presidential Unit citation, in part because of the unique and difficult feat of boarding and capturing an enemy warship on the high-seas--something the U.S. Navy had not accomplished since the 19th-century. More significantly, however, the capture of codebooks on U-505 allowed American cryptanalysts to occasionally break the special "coordinate" code in enciphered German messages and determine more precise locations for U- boat operating areas.
-
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
"Hi Yβaal,
Iβm not sure what all the comment is over. The movie or the event? If I remember correctly some Brit bombers bounced some bombs into a couple of dams? The result was more propaganda than actual damage. Did some Germans go thirsty or something? Why are yβaal so paranoid about American movies. There were Americans in the RAF, and the US Navy did capture a German submarine with up to date German navy codes.
Cheers, Matt."
It had a similar effect on the British public as the Doolittle Raid did for the US public - a sixteen small US bombers dropped a few bombs on Japan doing minimal damage. At least the Dambusters raid did significant damage and also had a long term effect by diverting resources to defending dams for the rest of the war.
MB -
Message 27
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
It had a similar effect on the British public as the Doolittle Raid did for the US public - a sixteen small US bombers dropped a few bombs on Japan doing minimal damage. At least the Dambusters raid did significant damage and also had a long term effect by diverting resources to defending dams for the rest of the war.
²Ρ΅ώΜύ
The Doolittle raid on Japan went half way around the world and bombed mainland Japan. You are trying to compare this with a raid on German dams. The diverted resources you mentioned was AA guns that they had in spades. The Japanese diverted resources were several hundred picket boats. The Doolittle raid shook Japanese moral to their toenails.
Matt. -
Message 28
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Message 25,
It's the portrayal of the U-boatmen I object to in 'U-571' the most.
By the way, the U.S. Navy also captured a copy of the "U-Boat Commander's Handbook" (written by U-boat veterans and issued by the Kriegsmarine to make up for the inexperience of many late-war commanders) from U-505 and subsequently published it in translation - a fascinating read. -
Message 29
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Message 21,
But would there be cocoa?!
By the by, the air raid sirens seemed to come remarkably late - the bombers were practically on top of them by the time they sounded. -
Message 30
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Anglo,
It was only a movie. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people can't draw a difference. It was made mostly for an American audience. Half of them couln't find Germany on a world map. It's just entertainment.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 31
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
While it is 'just a movie' and I doubt if people after watching it take it all on board as fact, it is the drip, drip effect that many find offensive.
And don't you often hear it 'we bailed out your limey butts' etc.
That has come from somewhere, partly hollywood for sure.
Not new either, Errol Flynn (not suitable for WW2 service as his liver was too shot even by then and he had too many STD's for any medics liking), in his wartime film 'Objective Burma', caused riots in some commonwealth cinemas, a very hostile reaction in the UK generally.
As at the time British and Commonwealth troops were bearing the brunt of the hard Burma campaign, so people did not care to see some Hollywood nonsense saying an American was almost single handedly winning it.
For years after the war, the term 'Errol Flynning it' was used the way someone is being a 'Walter Mitty Character'.
While the Doolittle Raid was, as it was intended, a morale booster for the US, the fact is, the US populace were not under direct bomb attack, saying they were on Dec 7th 1941 would be like be lumping an air attack on Gibralter to the London Blitz.
So perhaps the morale element of the Dambuster raid was more keenly felt.
Nonetheless, it was not for that, it was a serious and innovative attempt to try another method than area bombing.
Something Bomber Command were to try by other methods all through the bombing campaign, but this was the 1940's, Inertial navigation, bombing computers, laser and/or GPS guidance, laser ring gyros and much more besides were many years or decades away, but Bomber Command were always trying something more accurate, despite the technology being really many years away.
The risky attack was pressed home with great courage, well outside the usual flight envelope of the aircraft and experience of the crews.
617 and other squadrons would go on to in many cases pioneer much what is standard now, radar mapping, ECM, decoys.
Bomber Command was about the most dangerous place for a British and Commonwealth serviceman to be.
The casualty rate was horrific.
Not that the USAAF 8th Airforce had it easy either, quite the opposite.
Area bombing was a necessity in 1941/42, the only way the UK could hit back at the Reich.
To keep morale and momentum, Harris had to be an aggressive cheerleader for it.
Most Bomber Command crews regarded him as a great leader.
All this stuff about how it did not reduce war production misses the point, with Russia, then the US in the war, Germany had to greatly, almost exponentially increase war production-they had the massive slave labour to do it, but were retarded from doing so by the RAF and USAAF bombing.
Albert Speer himself cited the bombing as the major hinderance to expansion to anything like what was needed by Germany after 1941.
Just when they least needed it by late 1941/early 1942, Germany was at last to be under large scale air attack, which would only get more intense as better aircraft and the manpower became available.
Germany did NOT have unlimited numbers of AA guns, of crews, those 88mm guns were needed on Eastern, then Western Front battlefields, as in the usual towed artillery form or to fit to Tiger tanks on the production line.
Rommel first showed how this AA gun was a very capable tank buster,
The resources needed to defend the Reich against large scale bombing, were a very unwelcome burden, from guns to pilots, from fighter aircraft to all the effort man hours and material constantly repairing bomb damage.
Back to U571, while what Buckskinz posted about the 1944 incident was true, this was after the Battle Of The Atlantic was effectively won, it was by the end of the previous year.
Otherwise, how could that massive amount of men and material cross the Atlantic in preparation for Operation Overlord?
So while any capture of an Enigma was useful, the film I understand proports to sell it was vital for the war effort, for Allied survival even.
It was not in 1944, it was perhaps when HMS Boxer captured one in 1941, the action shamelessly 'borrowed' for the film.
Given the USN's fine record in the Pacific, why does Hollywood have this thing about attributing events the USA had little or nothing to do with, to them?
There are many worthwhile stories to be filmed on the USN in WW2 after all. -
Message 32
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Message 31 - posted by SONICBOOMER**, Just Now
While it is 'just a movie' and I doubt if people after watching it take it all on board as fact, it is the drip, drip effect that many find offensive.
And don't you often hear it 'we bailed out your limey butts' etc.
That has come from somewhere, partly hollywood for sure.Μύ
Well, you figure after all the Germans had kicked the British Army into the English channel. Your navy was about worthless against the German U boats that were sinking your merchant fleet faster than you could come close to building them. If you were to hear rather unkindly perhaps 'we bailed out your limey butts' just how inaccurate would it be.
Not new either, Errol Flynn (not suitable for WW2 service as his liver was too shot even by then and he had too many STD's for any medics liking), in his wartime film 'Objective Burma', caused riots in some commonwealth cinemas, a very hostile reaction in the UK generally.
As at the time British and Commonwealth troops were bearing the brunt of the hard Burma campaign, so people did not care to see some Hollywood nonsense saying an American was almost single handedly winning it.
For years after the war, the term 'Errol Flynning it' was used the way someone is being a 'Walter Mitty Character'.Μύ
At least you had the grace to mention The Commonwealth contribution. I know you were not saying there were no Americans in Burma. Your equipment right down to the k rations were supplied by us. All this for what? To protect your colony. I have never seen that flick but I understand it is about 60 years old?
While the Doolittle Raid was, as it was intended, a morale booster for the US, the fact is, the US populace were not under direct bomb attack, saying they were on Dec 7th 1941 would be like be lumping an air attack on Gibralter to the London Blitz.
So perhaps the morale element of the Dambuster raid was more keenly felt.Μύ
I like that one. Hawaii doesnβt count because you have water in between.
Nonetheless, it was not for that, it was a serious and innovative attempt to try another method than area bombing.
Something Bomber Command were to try by other methods all through the bombing campaign, but this was the 1940's, Inertial navigation, bombing computers, laser and/or GPS guidance, laser ring gyros and much more besides were many years or decades away, but Bomber Command were always trying something more accurate, despite the technology being really many years away.
The risky attack was pressed home with great courage, well outside the usual flight envelope of the aircraft and experience of the crews.
617 and other squadrons would go on to in many cases pioneer much what is standard now, radar mapping, ECM, decoys.
Bomber Command was about the most dangerous place for a British and Commonwealth serviceman to be.
The casualty rate was horrific.
Not that the USAAF 8th Airforce had it easy either, quite the opposite.
Area bombing was a necessity in 1941/42, the only way the UK could hit back at the Reich.
To keep morale and momentum, Harris had to be an aggressive cheerleader for it.
Most Bomber Command crews regarded him as a great leader.
Μύ
Lets get it right. The RAF bombed civilians at night. The USAAF bombed military and production targets during the day.
All this stuff about how it did not reduce war production misses the point, with Russia, then the US in the war, Germany had to greatly, almost exponentially increase war production-they had the massive slave labour to do it, but were retarded from doing so by the RAF and USAAF bombing.
Albert Speer himself cited the bombing as the major hinderance to expansion to anything like what was needed by Germany after 1941.
Just when they least needed it by late 1941/early 1942, Germany was at last to be under large scale air attack, which would only get more intense as better aircraft and the manpower became available.
Germany did NOT have unlimited numbers of AA guns, of crews, those 88mm guns were needed on Eastern, then Western Front battlefields, as in the usual towed artillery form or to fit to Tiger tanks on the production line.
Rommel first showed how this AA gun was a very capable tank buster,
The resources needed to defend the Reich against large scale bombing, were a very unwelcome burden, from guns to pilots, from fighter aircraft to all the effort man hours and material constantly repairing bomb damage.Μύ
In the big picture of things the damage done by βThe Dam Bustersβwas negligible.
Back to U571, while what Buckskinz posted about the 1944 incident was true, this was after the Battle Of The Atlantic was effectively won, it was by the end of the previous year.
Otherwise, how could that massive amount of men and material cross the Atlantic in preparation for Operation Overlord?Μύ
What possible difference does that make, even if accurate. It happened. The post prior to mine said it did not.
So while any capture of an Enigma was useful, the film I understand proports to sell it was vital for the war effort, for Allied survival even.
It was not in 1944, it was perhaps when HMS Boxer captured one in 1941, the action shamelessly 'borrowed' for the film.Μύ
It is a movie. A film. Entertainment. It was presented as such. Whatβs with you people, are your egos so fragile? It was not presented as a factual documentary on the war, and the beef was the Yanks never captured a sub.
Given the USN's fine record in the Pacific, why does Hollywood have this thing about attributing events the USA had little or nothing to do with, to them?
There are many worthwhile stories to be filmed on the USN in WW2 after all.Μύ
And given the USN's fine record in the Atlantic we will make movies about what the heck we feel like. The...USN...captured...a...German....sub...in...the...Atlantic. Now get over it.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 33
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Well I tried to post I think measured and reasoned points, wasting my time it seems.
So how would an American Expedionary Force, around the size of the BEF, have fared in 1940?
I would expect it would have made Kasserine look good.
First contact can be a bitch.
The reason so many made it off Dunkirk, was not because Hitler wanted them to escape, it was due to dogged defence by British and French troops, the British armoured attack at Arras rocked the High Command, it was not near decisive, it was too little too late, it was only a minor tactical move, but the Germans were not expecting it, so they exercised caution afterwards.
Had similar been done from the start by British and French forces, across the board, the outcome would have been different.
As it was, only a French Officer called DeGualle attempted similar.
Would an 'AEF' done any better?
Frankly I find this mocking of Dunkirk to be offensive, considering the heavy losses suffered, to how SS units treated POW's.
This country was in a fight for it's very survival, I do not think anyone in Texas, then or now, could really understand this.
Easy to sneer from at least 3000 miles away.
I would also point out the RN and RCN who mostly prevented the U-Boats from achieving their strategic objectives, with heavy loss of life.
The USN suffered intially from an Anglophobic incompetant called Adm King, who seems to have an attitude similar to Buckskinz, well didn't he do well? Causing that 'Happy Time' for the U-Boats. How many American sailors did his one eyed, bone headed, 'I know best' attitude kill?
The RN won out in the Mediterrean, which though it might not seem so to some American eyes, it was a theatre of vital importance to the nations's ability to stay in the war, there was pressure to withdraw from the area in the dark days of 1940, but they did not, all the while, with Canada, with after 1941 the USN, they fought and won against the U-Boats.
It was the US who pressed for the UK to concentrate on warship building, leaving merchant ships to the massive, safe from attack, US yards.
However snide the comments, anyone who thinks Pearl Harbour was anything like the Blitz has maybe taken seriously the 2001 film of the same name.
Again it's rather offensive, you should meet some of my relatives who lived through it.
So 8th AF were saintly accurate airmen, while Bomber Command was satan at night, utter rubbish, what are you, a scriptwriter for Mel Gibson?
Again, offensive rubbish, not a bit of truth, the USAAF carried out, like RAF, area bombing.
The much vaunted Norden bombsight was not a wonder device.
And the US was involved, or if you want to put it another way, implicated, in the Desden raids.
They were right in it with the RAF, right through the whole bombing campaign.
If you think the Allied bombing was wrong, then the USAAF has the same blood on their hands as the RAF.
I do not think that, if you want to have a crack at Bomber Command, then 8th AF too, anything else is dishonest.
For me, a slur at the many 8th AF airmen who died too.
So, how does the bombing of Japan, conventional and otherwise, sit in your moral universe?
To paraphrase-'your airmen firebombed civillians'.
Or is it OK if only the USA is doing it?
I don't think that of the bombing of Japan, I would never say they were crimes, including the atomic attacks, clearly you DO think that of what the USAAF did in Japan, if you think the same of the RAF over Germany, unless you have a split personality.
Films ARE a big part of our culture, Hollywood has a long history of trying to shape opinion (if it looks to make money of course).
I just wonder at the mindset of having for some reason, claim what others did, when there is no need to do so at all. -
Message 34
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
WOW!!, I did strike a few nerves. Sorry to have hurt your feelings there fella.
-
Message 35
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
I quite agree with all SONICBOOMER's comments.
Also a lot of ships were lost near the American coast because of the refusal to adopt a blackout which silhouetted them and made easy targets for U-Boats.
It has been suggested in the past that Admiral King should have been given an Iron Cross by the Germans for his refusal to take advice from experienced British and Commonwealth Naval officers.
The Americans were given access to a lot of information on British techniques and technology before their entry into the war. You wonder what could have happened if they had not treated radar as a toy and installed a proper radar chain around Hawaii at least. The British had the South and East coast covered before the start of the war so they had had plenty of the time to follow suit.
MB -
Message 36
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
You are replying to:
Message posted by JMB
I quite agree with all SONICBOOMER's comments.
Also a lot of ships were lost near the American coast because of the refusal to adopt a blackout which silhouetted them and made easy targets for U-Boats.
It has been suggested in the past that Admiral King should have been given an Iron Cross by the Germans for his refusal to take advice from experienced British and Commonwealth Naval officers.
The Americans were given access to a lot of information on British techniques and technology before their entry into the war. You wonder what could have happened if they had not treated radar as a toy and installed a proper radar chain around Hawaii at least. The British had the South and East coast covered before the start of the war so they had had plenty of the time to follow suit.
MB
Μύ
MB,
I agree with your entire post. King was a dingaling. It may surprise you to know that Hawaii had radar. In fact the operator reported the Japanese inbound and the duty officer ignored it. Kinda makes you wonder if that was what Washington wanted?
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 37
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Hawaii had something similar to our Chain ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Low but the point that I was making was that Britain had what would now be called a Command and Control system to handle the data which had been developed and used in exercises over the period before the war. The Chain ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ system was crude but it worked and it had the system behind it to handle the information. The radar on Hawaii seemed to be treated as a bit as a novelty and there was no system to handle its output.
MB -
Message 38
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
King was a dingalingΜύ
Far from it. A bright, determined and visionary leader (though foul tempered!)
His mistakes with the blackouts are far eclipsed by his successes in the Pacific. That the US Navy was equipped for the Pacific War is largely because of him.
He was not an Anglophobe he simply did not accept that the war against Japan could be seconded to wait for the war in Europe. And in that he was correct
For Australia in 1942, stripped of its army navy and air force to serve overseas against Germany, undefended and with its coast being bombed, he was a reliable and true ally. And for the rest of the region -
Message 39
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
What about his refusal to adopt the convoy system which resulted in the second "Happy Time" for the U-Boats?
MB -
Message 40
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
second Happy TimeΜύ
Also eclipsed by his prosecution of the Pacific War
I think that it's often not fully understood in Europe just how unstoppable Japan was after Pearl Harbour. And how much they terrorised the countries they conquered and threatened to conquer
Including a substantial section of the British Empire -the same empire that had been fighting for Britain for 2 years -
Message 41
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
I think you will find many people in Britain (and probably the Netherlands) are quite aware of the actions Japan during WWII (and before WWII in China).
However well he did in the Pacific, he still refused to adopt two very obvious measures almost certainly for the only reason that they were suggested by the British. Many people lost their lives because of those decisions.
MB -
Message 42
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Saw an interview with Michael Caine on the box a couple of weeks ago. He was asked what he thought of the remakes of Alfie and the Italian Job. His answer was (rather diplomatically I thought) that he thought remakes should only be made if the original was a flop. He pointed out the futility of making a remake of a successful film.
So, - my question is also: Why bother? -
Message 43
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
"So, - my question is also: Why bother?"
To make money.
It is easier to use an existing story than come up with something original.
Hollywood always thinks that any film can be improved by spending most of the budget on star names and / or special effects. The script comes well down the list of priorities
MB -
Message 44
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Many people lost their livesΜύ
Yes he made mistakes with the blackouts and convoys and people died. But there is no comparison of scale with the wholescale slaughter that was going on in the Asia Pacific. And the manner in which WW2 Japan carried out killings.
I don't think King felt any attachment to the peoples of the region, he saw it more in dispassionate terms of the strategic requirements to defeat Japan
Japan's a different story now, of course -
Message 45
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
However I'd agree (message 41) that Europeans other than the British and Dutch might not know details of the Pacific War
Anecdotally..
In my footloose travelling days in Europe I once shared a train carriage with a mixed group of Europeans. We were saying where we were from and I managed to get across Australia (mime a kangaroo - it works every time) I was handed a 'map of the world' to pinpoint where exactly.
There was no Pacific Ocean! The map makers had run out of space -
Message 46
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
woll,
Within the context of a reply to MB's Post, King was a dingaling. His performance on the eastern seaboard should have had him relagated to the mail room. He was a part of the successful Pacific campaign. He hardly was resposibile for its conception. Many of his pre Pacific decisions were plain stupid.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 47
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Sonic
It's worth bearing in mind that US precision bombing wasn't nearly as "precision" claimed. In Japan, the excuse was used that industrial machines had been dispersed into private houses (Toyko firestorms). In wet, cloudy Europe, the "bomb in a pickle barrel" bombsights that worked so well in the hot, dry, clear air of the Arizona ranges were less effective. A US DoD lawyer, W. Hays Parks made a very interesting analysis of RAF and USAAF (8th and 15th AF - Why does everyone forget the 15th?)in 1944 (the maturity of both forces) which shows that USAAF daylight precision performance was not nearly as superior as claimed, and that RAF night bombing was sometimes more accurate, and regarded as a greater threat by the Germans.
("Precision and Area Bombing: Who Did Which and When?" in "Airpower Theory and Practice" (Frank Cass, 1995, London ISBN 0-7146-4657-3) -
Message 48
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
I have been read a book about the V1 attacks on the North of England. There was a comment there about how much production had been lost because of the V1 campaign against London. If a few V1 had not much effect then if is obvious that the scale of attack by Bomber Command must have had a significant effect on German production along with the American attacks.
I agree with the comments from C3Square, we have seen in Iraq how the American forces PR operation portrays all their attacks as "precision" whereas independent reports show otherwise.
MB -
Message 49
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
JMB,
Message 48 - posted by JMB**, we have seen in Iraq how the American forces PR operation portrays all their attacks as "precision" whereas independent reports show otherwise.Μύ
MB can you give me a reference where anyone in authority has claimed
"the American forces PR operation portrays all their attacks as "precision"
Thanks, Matt. -
Message 50
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
You are replying to:
Message posted by C3Square
and that RAF night bombing was sometimes more accurate, and regarded as a greater threat by the Germans.Μύ
Hi,
is this to be taken seriously?
Matt.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.