>fighters flying a super tight formation on a patrol >pilots

>>85429675
>Anybody else feels like the plane realism could have been better ?
It's 2017 and they still use Merlin engined """Bf 109s""". Right from the trailer you could already figure out the aerial scenes would be shit.

Surely if they had everyone on the beach fire at the planes it would have made a difference?

>I play WarThunder and now think I am an expert on this subject matter
lmao

It was pretty obvious they tried to save some money with the white smoke stuff

>>85431155
This
Dunkirk threads have been full of /v/idya faggots whose idea of "realism" is actually nothing of the sort

>>85429675
>>sights being always perfectly adjusted whatever the distance is
>>dogfights being at basically point blank range

??
Make up your mind.

>>85431182
Do you really think they had the money to get the actual planes and warships, but not enough money for a different colored smoke? Fact is that 99% of planes went down exactly like that.

>>85431053
Even small arms fire has to be taken seriously. It will probably not shoot down any plane, but on the other side the pilots will have to play it safer, like releasing their bomb from a higher altitude at the cost of accuracy, which might save some lives on the ground.

>he-111 rear defensive guns sounding like a 30mm cannon

It was fucking cool, I want to see that movie again just for those sounds

File: harmony2.jpg (63KB, 770x406px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 770x406px

>>85431205
The sights are always adjusted for a particular range and it's not because you're close that it's going to be accurate.

>>85431250
what an incredibly imbecile read into my message. he was clearly complaining about planes not being broken up and falling into pieces. how ridiculous you must feel for trying to give yourself clever credit anonymously

>>85429675
>fighters flying a super tight formation on a patrol

This was an actual issue the RAF had during the early stages of WW2. They were so busy flying wingtip to wingtip that it was only the flight lead that was actually scanning the horizon, everyone else was just too focused on not crashing.

Not sure when it got solved but it might have been after Dunkirk which was relatively early in the war.

Rest of the points I'm not going to read since I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm fairly interested in military aviation so they might tick me off as well.

>>85431155
I was reading up on aviation before you were even born.

>>85431389
Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation

>Luftwaffe pilots were disparaging about the RAF’s use of the Vic formation during the Battle of Britain, calling them Idiotenreihen (“rows of idiots”)
>We knew there was a lot wrong with our tactics during the Battle of Britain but it was one hell of a time to alter everything we had practiced.
It wasn't until the Battle of Britain died down that the Brits changed their fighter tactics.

>>85431715
Cheers.

>>85430129
>It's 2017 and they still use Merlin engined """Bf 109s""".

They used actual aircraft for the movie? I'm kinda surprised. Almost all still flight worthy Bf-109's are HA-1112's, some have been re-engined with DB605's, but most still have Merlins. There is literally two airworthy Bf-109E's in the fucking world.

>>85431250
>Do you really think they had the money to get the actual planes and warships, but not enough money for a different colored smoke?

That could be safety issue. Black smoke with old warbird might usually means trouble, lot of it.

>>85432328
I don't know for sure what they used, but someone said they put a huge chunk of budget in the aerial scenes so I suppose all the planes are real. With that budget they probably could have had one of these 2 109 Es performing for them, and if not they could have CGI'd the HA-1112s to make them look the part.

>>85432530
>With that budget they probably could have had one of these 2 109 Es performing for them

One of those is on wrong continent and other flew first time in about decade about month ago.

There is couple good reasons why almost all Bf-109 that are still airworthy are actually HA-1112's with Merlins. First is the fact that Spanish Air Force kept 'em in service until mid 60's and spare parts for Merlin are far easier to get thanks to lot of still airworthy Spitfires, Hurricanes and Mosquitos.

Time when airworthy WWII-warbirds still existed is running out, unless someone is starting to build 1:1 replicas and that is going to be expensive as fuck.

>>85432867
Yeah I know about the scarcity of 109s with DB engines, but for a high budget movie in 2017 I still don't think it's a valid excuse.
>Time when airworthy WWII-warbirds still existed is running out
Yes and no. Stuff like the Merlin engined "Heinkel 111s" in the old Battle of Britain movie is gone, but there's probably more air worthy Spitfires now than 40 years ago, and nowadays there's even brand new planes like these Fw-190 and Me-262 replicas. I get that it would be way too much effort for a movie, but they could at least apply some CGI on the footage.

File: tumblr_mefn9xBTak1r9khx4o1_1280.png (403KB, 800x524px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 800x524px

>>85429675
>fighters flying a super tight formation on a patrol

brits did this

>pilots flying at basically sea level

valid, but they could have been doing a fly over for some navalfags to keep their moral up

>attacking a bomber by slowly pulling up from behind it

Early heinkels had blindspots all over the place especially at the rear, later on in the war they actually attacted a dummy MG to try and scare fighters away from their tail

>he-111 rear defensive guns sounding like a 30mm cannon

valid

>sights being always perfectly adjusted whatever the distance is

there's lots of cuts, how do you know they didn't adjust gunsights?

>dogfights being at basically point blank range

this was how fighters worked in WW2, Hartmann the german ace used to fly mere meters away from the IL-2's he destroyed

>never adjusting the prop pitch and mixture to conserve fuel

again cuts

>Every plane puffing out white smoke once it's been hit with bullets

it could have been water vapour from the radiator

>AAA only seen once in the whole movie plus that scene of the british guy shooting at the stukas with his rifle

this is wrong though, you see a bofors gun on the minesweeper and AA bren guns.

Also shooting at ground attack aircraft with small arms wasn't exactly unheard of, pic related silly russians shooting at aircraft

All in all I rate your nitpicking pretty poor, if you're going to pick at things how about the scene where Hardey takes down a stuka while GLIDING, god now that was silly

File: 1496115740925.png (761KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 1280x738px

>>85433180
>Yeah I know about the scarcity of 109s with DB engines, but for a high budget movie in 2017 I still don't think it's a valid excuse.

>>85433394
What's the issue here?

>>85431332
More like this please

This is among the most autistic things I've read on here

>>85434982
Autism is a desirable trait in a movie director.

File: doolittle0512784.jpg (133KB, 980x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 980x768px

>>85433227
>dummy MG
Who here broom stick?

>>85433478
>What's the issue here?

Finding airworthy DB-engined Bf-109 is pretty damn hard, even if talk about newer F or G models that are more common than early war E-models. Amount of airworthy Bf-109E's in the world when Dunkirk was filmed was somewhere between one and two aircraft, as one of those just flew for first time in decade just month ago. Then we can start consider finding qualified ground crew, handful of guys in the world, who probably do something other than maintain Bf-109 for living, maintaining warbirds is probably hobby for most of them. Then we can consider the owner of the warbird, in case of Bf-109E they are rich as fuck and probably want to participate in specific airshow or two each summer. Does he allow his plane to be repainted?

Is slightly more authentic aircraft potentially worth millions from the budget? Does getting rid of hundreds of extras and their uniforms justify getting it?

While you are autistic... you aren't even close to power level of aviation authority when it comes to being anal about details.

>>85435379
Did you miss the part where I talked about CGI? I couldn't care less that Battle of Britain uses Merlin-engined 109s because back when it was made "CGI" didn't exist. But in 2017, how does a high budget production justify not being able to go over some footage to edit the couple obvious inaccuracies?
I know it's fucking autistic to quibble about aircraft variants when the average movie goer can't tell a Spitfire apart from a 109, but still, it's the kind of attention to detail (or lack thereof) that can make me look at a director in a different way.

>>85431715
this the flight lead was even the first to go down as soon as they made contact