Dunkirk

I see a p/o G Davies made a wheels-down landing on the beach, possibly among others:
Dunkirk Operation Dynamo Evacuation Beaches

Spoiler: Spit

My only passing thought on the magic spitfire is that it was carrying Clint Eastwood mp40 levels of ammunition and made ace in one flight. The long glide that seems to be part of some online outrage is probably about a minute. Only seems longer if the three story's time difference is allowed to confuse.

 

I just saw the movie last night at our local theater. My impression was that he was afraid of going down in the water-a lot of pilots had that phobia and I don't blame them. His wingman's little "problem" with the canopy is a case in point. The only catch would be if he hit soft sand and nosed over, trapping him. I wondered since he ran out of gas, where did all the flames come from when he burned the plane? There would only be a small amount of avgas in the tank sump. Having said that, my main quibble is, like some others, the amount of gliding time of the Spit. After running out of gas at a fairly low level, he shoots down two enemy a/c and then glides forever. As a pilot myself, I had a bit of a problem with that-totally unrealistic.

I could live with the movie's juxtaposition of time as an artistic ploy of the director. I also thought that the chaos and confusion that comes with real battle was a nice touch. Over all, I thought the movie was a good one despite a few quibbles.

 

I actually thought the use of time interweaving varying perspectives was a strength of the film.

 

I thought the time juxtaposition was ok but wasn't a wowser for me.

I have a naval question re. the movie: Were the RN ships shown in the film depictions of real ships or were they just made up by someone who didn't check what they really looked like?

 

As far as I know, all the ships used are real ships.
The 1950's French destroyer Maillé-Brézé, a museum ship, was several of the British destroyers.
The Dutch minesweepers Naaldwijk and Sittard played roles of British minesweepers and distant British destroyers.
The "hospital ship" is the Dutch passenger ship Rogaland.
The Dutch MLV Castor, a museum ship, was mocked-up to play the part of a British destroyer.

The only actual period warships in the movie were the British MTB102 and Harbor Defence Motor Launch HMS Medusa.
The treat here is that MTB102 is the only warship playing herself in the film - having been a very active participant in the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Of the Little Ships seen in the film, somewhere around 12 or 15 were actual participants in the historical evacuation. So, I guess you could call it a "reunion" of sorts. As to the Moonstone, ,there is very little on the centerpiece of the film.

 

That is going to depend on the individual viewer...I know several who "got lost".

 

Saw the film in IMAX...and WOW!

The only real downer, a minor one though, was the sound...It was overly loud I thought, at least on the IMAX version...Although, there is something to be said with feeling your seat and the floor vibrate with each explosion.

 

Because that would not follow the "PLOT."

Besides, if it had not been for that...We never would have seen any German troops. Not that those badly out-of-focus human-looking spectres actually qualifies as "seeing German troops." But, they were wearing German helmets.

 

As I've tried to tell my Dad, if characters did what they were supposed to do, movies and books would turn out rather dull. If characters don't do dumb things, you don't have as long and exciting a story.

 

I see what you're saying but why not tell it like it is. All they had to do was change the word 'enemy' to 'German' and I would have accepted the rest but the combination was just too much. I read the filmmmaker said he wanted people to feel the desperation of those on the beaches. Which as i said, he certainly did and did it well but this doesn't alter the facts. Otherwise some could take this movie as one that is not based on fact.

 

Believe me, it took me a while to get the hang of it, lol, but once I figured it out it made the movie that much more impactful.

 

A quick question for the Spitfire experts:

Were the water landings somewhat accurate?

I was wondering if the wings would have broke off with a landing like that.

 

Haven't seen the film yet, too busy getting a mortgage to get the car through its MOT.
Just found this to add to the "things you never knew" archive-
"Christopher Nolan's epic World War Two film, Dunkirk, which tells the story of the mass evacuation of Allied troops from the northern coast of France in 1940, has been getting glowing reviews in India.
But many are glowering over Nolan turning a blind eye to the role of Indian soldiers in the battle. The Times of India wrote that their "significant contribution" was missing from Nolan's "otherwise brilliant" work. Writing for Bloomberg View, columnist Mihir Sharma said the film "adds to the falsehood that plucky Britons stood alone against Nazi Germany once France fell, when, in fact, hundreds of millions of imperial subjects stood, perforce, with them".
Few can deny the role of the subjects. Some five million Commonwealth servicemen joined the military services of the British empire during WW2. Almost half of them were from South Asia. Indian soldiers played a key role in major battles like Tobruk, Monte Cassino, Kohima and Imphal. A multinational force of British, Indian and African units recaptured Burma (Myanmar) for the Allies.
What happened with the Indian soldiers in Dunkirk is less clear. Yasmin Khan, historian and author of The Raj at War: A People's History of India's Second World War, says she has often wondered why there is very little factual data on their role in the battle, which many say cost Germany the war.
What is well known, she told me, is that four companies of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps, including a unit of the Bikaner State forces, served in France during the campaign on the Western Front, and some were evacuated from Dunkirk. Among them were three contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps. One contingent was taken prisoner by German forces."
Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the Indian army? - BBC News

 

I can't imagine the Channel was ideal for such landings.

 

Landings on water in Spitfires ( or any WWII single-engine fighter ) were very hazardous. Wing loadings meant that landing speeds were quite fast .The wings wouldn't necessarily break off ( the spar was very strong ) but deceleration could be almost instantaneous due to the radiator housings beneath the aircraft. Many pilots were knocked unconscious ( or killed outright ) by the impact of their forehead hitting the gunsight. And then, with a very heavy engine upfront, sinking could be rapid, drowning the pilot before he could regain his senses and get out.

 

Martin, good point, but in addition, the scoop under some planes would catch the water and force the nose down and the forward momentum of the plane would literally put the plane into a dive under the water. Will agree that water landings would only be slightly/maybe more preferable than bailing out into the channel. In that pilots's place I'd be more apt to try a wheels-up landing on the beach.