DUNKIRK

>>85349174
2. Performing a negative G maneuver.

Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, it was realistic, but the only reason it was in the movie was because some retard just recently made a super popular "engineering" video on the spitfire's "fatal" flaw and Nolan wanted to jerk off everyone who knew this little factoid. In reality all spitfire pilots were well informed about negative g maneuvers and no "ace" would ever get baited into one.

>>85349184
3. Tailgating a bomber.

Sitting behind a bomber is how you die a very stupid and avoidable death. An "ace" would never tailgate a plane while a machine gun is shooting at him. One bullet in the engine and you're toast. Yet in the movie he sits behind the bomber for a good ten seconds and somehow all the bomber's bullets are deflected as if they were bbs.

4. And worst of all the movie didn't even feature deflection shooting.

I thought Nolan would first show a scene with a rookie pilot shooting directly at a plane and having all his bullets fall short, then later having him learn from his mistake leading his shots on his second pass, scoring a critical hit to give the audience a feel for what it was truly like to be in the cockpit of a spitfire.

>>85349184
5. And last but not least, he crashed the plane with no survivors.

In reality, a big guy with a master plan would never play right into the CIA's hands like that. Jesus Christ.

>>85349219
For all of the reviews claiming this movie was "realistic" and respected the audience's intelligence I was severely disappointed. Nolan didn't even trust us to wrap our tiny brains around basic ballistics.

The "aerial combat" consisted just of "I'm on his six", the pilot pressing a button, and then smoke coming out the enemy plane. When considering you have all these amazing aerial combat maneuvers that could have been showcased: immelmans, vertical scissors, hammerheads, reversals, etc. it is such an absolute shame that Nolan chose to play it safe. The spitfire deserves better.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, especially the sound, but the aerial combat was seriously lacking. Yes I had high expectations but man, I didn't think it would be that bad.

>>85349184
Can you explain this further? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

>>85349289
A negative G maneuver is when you reverse the tachyon fields and induce local anti-gravity. When in fact during the early battles of WWII anti-grav tech hadn't been put into greater service.

Nolan's a terrible director.

>>85349244
wow, so funny, ha ha

>>85349341
That wouldn't fly so good.

>>85349289
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzRlga2-Hho

first image is literally a hurricane lmao

>>85349411
Thanks

>>85349341
you're a comedic fucking genius

>>85349378
But in the end he landed this plane, with all survivors

Its almost as if movies sacrifice some realism in order to make an enjoyable film. Who would have thought

>>85349289
I think it's when you turn the plane back and the engine would cut out, am I correct?

>>85349521
then why does every fucking review praise the movie for its realism?

>>85349522
>>85349411

Looks like it.

>>85349257
>implying Nolan knows these stuff himself just chooses not to show us
He is not the guy I would go to for detailed depiction of technique and technology

>>85349521
You can take the guy's advice and make an even more enjoyable film.
Nolan just doesn't care.

>>85349219
>Sitting behind a bomber is how you die a very stupid and avoidable death

nope

early German bombers were under armed had pretty obvious blind spots (yes you could tailgate at a certain angle behind and avoid fire with early heinkels).

the machine-gun at the tail of the heinkel for instance was actually fixed dummy, they would remote control fire to try and scare off allied fighters even though in reality it was zero threat.

either way the bomber was about to drop charges on the minesweeper so he went balls deep, you're making a mountain out of a molehill here OP

>>85349550
who cares what reviewers say.

File: 1500753990977.png (126KB, 402x398px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 402x398px

I hate it when they get the most simple shit wrong

>>85349174
>1. Flying low across the channel. There is literally no reason to do this other than to show off the speed of the planes to the audience.

Considering you had low flying kraut bombers looking for isolated targets would this REALLY be impossible to imagine? pretty sure in the first engagement they're at about 2k, how low would a torp/depth charge carrying bomber be sitting? a lot less I would imagine.

I don't claim to be an expert, but it seemed decently realistic to me. certainly light years better than "red tails" or whatever crap the Americans churn out

>>85349685
To appease who? the handfull of autists on /tv/ that complain about this shit

Flying low makes you hard to detect on radar you moron.

Holy shit, this thread oozes autism.

>>85350545
the planes had no radar back then

>>85350566
So fucking what if we want realism. It should be the standard, not something the fans have to beg for each time.

>>85349219
>Tailgating a bomber
Even I knew this was stupid, and I'm not an enthusiast. He should have come in from underneath.

>>85350790
Auuuuuuuuutism

>t. plays war thunder and thinks hes an expert aviator

>>85349184
>>85349411
>the only reason it was in the movie was because some retard just recently made a super popular "engineering" video on the spitfire's "fatal" flaw
Video seems published late 2016, which probably means the movie was well into production already at that point.

lmao@u fuken nerd

>>85350790
Realism is fucking shit, pretty much nobody wants realism in their movies. They want what they think is realism, not actual realism. Same games for video games.

What bothered me is that nobody had a moustache. They were very common back then.

>>85350850
The point was he had no time. It was about to hit the ship.

shutup nerd

>>85351608

french kid did

File: 1500736193158.png (1MB, 951x1109px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 951x1109px

>>85349174
Don't forget the were literally hundreds of planes fighting over Dunkirk, which was littered with hundreds of thousands of tons of abandoned vehicles and equipment and Nolan depicts a single Spitfire blowing up half a scattered squadron over a pristine beach and coastline. It's an absolute insult to the Miracle at Dunkirk.

>>85349174
Its concevable that going low makes you harder to spot, but in a dogfight in that era energy (kinetic and potential) was everything.

Going low basically gives you zero potential energy because you cant dive.

>>85349522
You know when your on a rollercoaster and you feel your ass lift the seat and your being thrown up into your harness? Thats a negative G manuver.

In aviation, all you have to do is push the yoke forward quickly. Havent seen the movie, but it sounds like OP stated, they put it in because it sounded cool.

nothing pissed me off more than none of the pilots leading their targets. WHY THE FUCK DID THEY WAIT FOR A TURNING TARGET TO BE IN THEIR CROSSHAIR BEFORE SHOOTING, SHOOT BEFORE THAT HOLY FUCK IF THEY ARE TURNING AND YOU WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE PARALLEL WITH YOUR GUN TO SHOOT, BY THE TIME THE BULLET TRAVELS IT WILL HAVE MISSED THEM COMPLETELY, THIS HAPPENS LIKE 4 TIMES

>>85352358
Unlike OPs silly list, this one is an actual gripe. And there HAS to be some reason for it. Especially when the MG fire wasn't even that visible in the film. So why didn't Bane lead? Would normies not get it? And in one shot he's even clearly shooting AFTER the target has already left his reticule...

>>85349174
Ah, yes. I too have played war thunder. It's a shame nolan did not hire aviation experts like us to assist in the directing of those scenes.

>>85349174
Did you fly in WW2?

>>85350783
Thats a lie