David Evans: Thanks! I did not know that. For those interested, check out the wiki on the Gloster Meteor. There is some really cool stuff to learn there, about a forgotten piece of military history!

Tedd, just FYI, comparing the Mk. 108 to the A10 is not entirely apt here because (a) A10 rounds have a larger shell and thus deliver a lot more energy (the German gun may have had a 30mm bore, but it had only a 90mm case, that’s just three and a half inches, which is more comparable to the M2 .50, whereas the A10’s 30mm is twice that length, and probably wider than the German casing as well; and accordingly, I see the Mk. 108 apparently had an infamously low muzzle velocity) and (b) the A10 does its infamous damage by accumulated kinetics, i.e. it fires seventy rounds a second (which, as one analyst put it, “literally dismantles its target”), and no German weapon had anything near that ROF (the Mk. 108 fired 10 per; and in aerial combat, at that rate serial delivery to a man-sized target is much less likely).

One thing that really would make a difference is that they preferred to load incendiary explosive ordinance in the Mk. 108s, but IMO that kind of shell would not likely detonate in a body–either it would detonate in the forward fuselage (and down the plane outright) or pass through the canopy and the body (which, impact-kinetics-wise, would be invisible to a bullet like that) before detonating in the interior of the plane (unless deflected free; there are stories of tank shells passing through entire vehicles before detonating, for example). But all in all, you’re right, they certainly under-displayed the effects of a hit in the film. Not only from incendiary damage, but also we’re still talking about probably four times the impact force of a 50 caliber.

The major problem with Midway was the completely unnecessary love story between Charlton Heston’s son and a Japanese-American. This brought nothing to the movie (the conflict between father and son was also unnecessary) and was, IMNSHO, boring.

*The code was broken after the Pearl Harbor attack, not before, as some historical revisionists claim.

If one of those shells hit the cockpit of the 51(as depicted), hamburger would remain. Certainly nothing left for the dying last-words scene that results.

Zachary Smith: Regarding ME 262s vs. P-51s, the movie oversimplified (the kill ratio in a match-up was 5:1 in favor of the MEs), but did attempt to show some of the actual tactics American pilots developed to dispatch the jets (they emphasized two in particular: tactical crossfire and descent velocity; the first is setting up a wall of bullets where the jet will go, as that exploited a weakness the jets had: they couldn’t turn as nimbly; the second gave the prop planes jet-comparable velocities by using gravity to add speed in a long hard descent, then taking advantage of that boost rapidly before engagement slowed them down). Likewise, P-51s could evade the line of fire of an ME 262 more easily precisely because they were slower (imagine an F-14 trying to take down an aerobatic prop plane, without radar gunsights or missiles: it is not as easy as you might think). They used this to maximum advantage. The ME 262s could either chase P51s around until they got lucky, or make a run at a bomber thereby creating an obvious path of travel the P-51s could crossfire. So it wasn’t a cake walk for the jet fighters. But they did have a huge advantage. And actually got better as pilots figured out how to use them better (thus near the end of the war the ME 262s were far more formidable than they were in their first engagements).

Apart from the fact that the American losses should have been higher (although perhaps they did intend to show that by downing a bunch of redshirts in the final battle sequence–which IMO was more bad writing because the “named” pilots didn’t even seem to notice or care about those losses), the only other thing I thought was unrealistic (although that was more in the writing) was that no American pilot would intentionally engage an ME 262 head-on, precisely because its gun mount was where the prop’s engine would be, rather than the wings, thus guaranteeing suicide. The movie depicted a pilot doing that as if he had no idea he was killing himself. A better writer would have set it up so he did that knowing he would die, specifically to save his friend (or set it up so that the head-on duel happened by accident or by the tactical intent of the German pilot, coming upon the American too quickly to avoid it so he had to ride it out and hope for a mutual–which would not be easy, because the German pilot could easily kilter his plane and thus avoid all incoming fire while taking out the P-51 pilot, so the P-51 pilot would have to be pretty good to match the German’s roll enough to get bullets on target).

What the movie didn’t show was that most MEs were dispatched by two other more humdrum tactics: hitting them at takeoff and landing (when they had poor thrust and maneuverability; likewise, of course, hitting them on the ground) and forcing them to flameout in a dogfight. Over-aggressive dogfighting maneuvers could cut out the MEs engines (so often, in fact, the Germans tried developing automated throttles to prevent pilots from doing that); so American pilots used the P-51s maneuverability to frustrate German pilots into over-throttling to get them in their gun sights, then dispatching the dead plane after its engine went out.

There is a really superb tactical analysis of all this on Wikipedia. It doesn’t deal with everything, but it’s quite ample and well sourced.

Most noteworthy, I think, is its patronizing tone, which was normal in the 40s (and long after) when “enlightened” whites deigned to discuss the problems of blacks.

Since you have have some knowledge of weapons tech, hopefully you can answer this.

It seemed to me that the ME 262’s were too easily dispatched by the P-51’s. How did the ME 262 fare against Allied prop fighters – was the movie accurate in this regard?

I recently saw “The Battle of Britain” for the first time since I was a kid. Vintage surplus aircraft were used and man, did it look great to see real planes on film. Although I must say I was impressed with the CGI planes in “Red Tails”. Much better than the usual CGI fare.

“Red Tails” is also the only movie I know of that has a dogfight scene with ME 262’s.

pretty much everything we fight with now was invented by the Nazis

Add to that the the Soviet and American space programs and it does make one raise one’s eyebrows a little. As an aside, it’s interesting to note that up to that time, most Nobel Prizes in the sciences were won by Germans. I’ll have to re-check that though. I think that these days the Americans are winning most of those.

I will eventually see it, I think. Lucas is indeed an awful writer. he excuses himself by saying that ‘popcorn movies need corn’ which is illegitimate because corny dialogue doesn’t have to be bad dialogue. FFS.

His early movies like American Graffiti, THX (both) and A New Hope were absolutely excellent films, showing him to be a virtuoso. Too bad he got too comfortable.

I also agree that lazy CGI should be rejected. What was great about the first Star Wars trilogy was that most of the visual effects were models. Real, tangible models that you lit with real light and photographed with real cameras.

Also, Lucas made a mistake by going digital too soon for the second two prequels. I’m not against digital cinema, but I am against using a technology which is too limited. And back then, digital movie cameras were not very good – and not very practical, either.