PDA

View Full Version : Just seen the film 'Tora Tora Tora' again after a long while...



MB_Avro_UK
09-23-2007, 04:18 PM
Hi all,

Have'nt seen this film for many a year but watched it on TV today. It was about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour but I suspect that 97.6% of you here know that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Made in about 1970 I think.

I was impressed with the political detail and the attempt to be fair to both sides.

It was far better than the recent 'Hollyweird' Pearl Harbor release.

No computer graphics at the time of course but there were many great action shots.

What sticks in my mind was the attempts of P-40 pilots to get airborne but being straffed and crashing into lined up aircraft.

There's an interesting hypothesis that had Pearl heeded an incoming warning that the damage would have been worse.

Shame that the radar warning was ignored. Was the equipment provided by the British?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
09-23-2007, 04:36 PM
I`m sure you don`t mean it, but that last `was it provided by the British?` makes it sound like you`re blaming the UK for Pearl harbour! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif lol.

Saw it too. An excellent film and defo better than `that` newer one...

Waldo.Pepper
09-23-2007, 04:38 PM
Was the equipment provided by the British?

No. American made. SCR-270 (I think I have the manual for the 270.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-270

MB_Avro_UK
09-23-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`m sure you don`t mean it, but that last `was it provided by the British?` makes it sound like you`re blaming the UK for Pearl harbour! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif lol.

Saw it too. An excellent film and defo better than `that` newer one...

Blaming the UK for Pearl Harbour? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
It amazed me in the film that the radar provide fool-proof warnings of an incoming Japanese attack but was ignored.

I wonder as to the standard of the Pearl Harbour radar equipment. It must have been an advancement on the 1940 Battle of Britain equipment.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

reisen52
09-23-2007, 04:49 PM
It was developed at Ft. Monmouth NJ starting with a prototype in 1935. Production contracts were given to Westinghouse in 1938.

They had a range of about 150 miles. At PH the problem was it was manned by two privates & what do privates know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MB_Avro_UK
09-23-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the equipment provided by the British?

No. American made. SCR-270 (I think I have the manual for the 270.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-270 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post Waldo.Pepper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Intersting extract from your link:

'After the Japanese attack, the RAF agreed to send Watson-Watt to the United States to advise the military on air defense technology. In particular Watson-Watt directed attention to the general lack of understanding at all levels of command of the capabilities of radar- with it often being regarded as a freak gadget "producing snap observations on targets which may or may not be aircraft." General Saville, director of Air Defense at the Army Air Force headquarters referred to the Watson-Watt report as "a damning indictment of our whole warning service".


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

VF-17_Jolly
09-23-2007, 05:13 PM
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/519PMVZ0X8L._SS500_.jpg

Have you read this:-

Survivor accounts printed in 1957

VW-IceFire
09-23-2007, 05:23 PM
About the radar...think about it this way. You have a new technology that is still being tested and officially mistrusted by those in command. So you go out on a test run with the new gadget and suddenly it shows your worst fears on the screen. Hardly anyone would believe that...nobody was really expecting it to happen. Not the average guy in the field anyways...

Xiolablu3
09-23-2007, 06:50 PM
Didnt the radar just record an incoming bunch of planes which could have been anything?

I thought that they mistook them for a flight of B17's which was supposed to be arriving some time that day?

Or was this just a cover story to stop a witchhunt after large radar plots of unknown contacts were ignored?>

heywooood
09-23-2007, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
It was developed at Ft. Monmouth NJ starting with a prototype in 1935. Production contracts were given to Westinghouse in 1938.

They had a range of about 150 miles. At PH the problem was it was manned by two privates & what do privates know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

they knew to call it in to a Lt. who assumed incorrectly that he knew what he was doing..

leitmotiv
09-23-2007, 07:15 PM
It is a good film only flawed by the error of making the audience believe the document to be presented by the Japanese embassy in DC was tantamount to a declaration of war---it wasn't---all it did was inform the U.S. of a breech in diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Japan, i.e., the Japanese were playing like the dance was still going right before the bombs dropped. Thus, the attack was not proceeded by a declaration of war. The other howler was the completely fabulous statement about waking a sleeping dragon at the end. First of all, the presentation of that document in time would not have palliated any American---the attack was a flat-out surprise stonk no matter how you cut it, and, second, Yamamoto never expressed fears about waking the U.S. from its non-interventionist slumber. On the contrary, members of his staff warned a surprise attack would enrage the U.S. and prevent a diplomatic resolution of the war. Yamamoto ignored the warnings. Thus, to his staff belongs the presentiments of doom, not Yamamoto.

A new book to be published by the U.S. Naval Institute this fall details the economic measures taken by the U.S. to punish Japan before the war, and claims the U.S. Gov had destroyed Japan economically before the first shot had been fired by freezing assets and other ecomomic weapons. The Japanese had two choices in Dec 1941: (1) cave in to U.S. demands to leave China in order to gain release from U.S. economic warfare, or (2) go to war.

R_Target
09-23-2007, 08:05 PM
Leitmotiv, do you have the title of that book? Sounds like something I might like.

reisen52
09-23-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt the radar just record an incoming bunch of planes which could have been anything?

I thought that they mistook them for a flight of B17's which was supposed to be arriving some time that day?

Or was this just a cover story to stop a witchhunt after large radar plots of unknown contacts were ignored?>

I don't know if the B-17 story was a bad assumption on someone's part or a tap dance after the fact.

The radar could see out about 150 miles & the B-17's should have been tracked more to the east traveling west. It was a long haul in those days from the mainland to the islands. I don't think the B-17 would be site seeing but would take a pretty straight line from the west coast using RDF since there is no place to land other then Hawaii

The Japanese attack came down from the North.

muchaclopiec
09-23-2007, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/519PMVZ0X8L._SS500_.jpg

Have you read this:-

Survivor accounts printed in 1957 "Infamy! Infamy!..they`ve all got it Infamy!"- Carry on up the Khyber.

sorry, couldnt resist..
back to Tora Tora Tora, decent movie, by why did the filmmakers decide to be fair to both sides? yes, i know US economic sanctions where s`posed to be one reasons for the attack, but in 20 years time will a fim about 9/11 be so impartial?

Waldo.Pepper
09-23-2007, 09:55 PM
No navigation method of the era was foolproof, and it was common for aircraft coming in from the mainland to approach the Hawaiian Islands from peculiar direction.

Von_Rat
09-24-2007, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt the radar just record an incoming bunch of planes which could have been anything?

I thought that they mistook them for a flight of B17's which was supposed to be arriving some time that day?

Or was this just a cover story to stop a witchhunt after large radar plots of unknown contacts were ignored?>

I don't know if the B-17 story was a bad assumption on someone's part or a tap dance after the fact.

The radar could see out about 150 miles & the B-17's should have been tracked more to the east traveling west. It was a long haul in those days from the mainland to the islands. I don't think the B-17 would be site seeing but would take a pretty straight line from the west coast using RDF since there is no place to land other then Hawaii

The Japanese attack came down from the North. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the officer who discounted the report is still alive, at least he was a few years ago. i saw a fairly recent interview where he gave his reasons for ignoring the radar report. he thought they were b17s.

he still sounded pissed off after all these years. i cant blame him.

Krt_Bong
09-24-2007, 09:17 AM
Pearl Harbor could've been a decent enough movie outside of the fact that no pilot could be in the Eagle Squadron then get to Pearl in time for the attack, and then been a B-25 pilot for the Doolittle Raid. The love story aspect is just typical Hollywood formula for having to please both the Guys and the Ladies because most of us know our girlfriends/wives won't sit through a war picture unless there's a tragic love story attached to it. Personally I liked the special effects, it was technically superior to Tora. I thought the movie was a quality production, air battles were very realistic and visceral, but the basic premise of the plot just fell short of reality. I mean just either way you cut it Afflecks' character was halfway around the world and that in itself would prevent him from getting from the BoB to the PTO in time for Dec.7th. Tora, Tora, Tora on the other hand was a Docu-Drama and Midway had the Plot devices (Heston's son in love with a stateside Japanese girl incarcerated in the prison camp)but still being documentary and re-using some footage from Tora. Both of those movies are more historically acurate but still have their shortcomings IMO

leitmotiv
09-24-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Leitmotiv, do you have the title of that book? Sounds like something I might like.

BANKRUPTING THE ENEMY, Edward S. Miller

to be released 2 October 2007

http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1604&DEPARTMENT_ID=25

Scharnhorst1943
09-24-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt the radar just record an incoming bunch of planes which could have been anything?

I thought that they mistook them for a flight of B17's which was supposed to be arriving some time that day?

Or was this just a cover story to stop a witchhunt after large radar plots of unknown contacts were ignored?>

I don't know if the B-17 story was a bad assumption on someone's part or a tap dance after the fact.

The radar could see out about 150 miles & the B-17's should have been tracked more to the east traveling west. It was a long haul in those days from the mainland to the islands. I don't think the B-17 would be site seeing but would take a pretty straight line from the west coast using RDF since there is no place to land other then Hawaii

The Japanese attack came down from the North. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a cover, it is fact. There WAS a flight of B-17's due from California that morning. The radar picked up something larger than the B-17 flight, and it was coming from the North-West, not the East-North-East. However, since everybody was clueless to the immenant attack, the "officer in question" assumed that what radar picked up WAS the B-17 flight. The actual B-17 flight was jumped by zeroes and most of the planes tried to crash land on the airfields whith zeroes on their tails and vals obliterating what runway was left ...

Bremspropeller
09-24-2007, 11:50 AM
I thought the movie was a quality production, air battles were very realistic and visceral,


Yeah, especially the wing-walking P-40s flying through the streets of Honolulu and Zeros crashing into each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Krt_Bong
09-24-2007, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the movie was a quality production, air battles were very realistic and visceral,


Yeah, especially the wing-walking P-40s flying through the streets of Honolulu and Zeros crashing into each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay well THAT was some good ole Hollywood chase scene stuff I was more about the Japanese Attack on the ships and the follow the Bomb through the deck of the Arizona. We all know the P-40's were the wrong versions and the Dogfight was more played up for 'Smokey and the Bandit' types.

UgoRipley
09-24-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
.............
What sticks in my mind was the attempts of P-40 pilots to get airborne but being straffed and crashing into lined up aircraft.

WHAT ?? I hope they got banned after vulching !!



...couldn't resist !

horseback
09-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Regarding the whole radar issue, most people cannot appreciate how limited radar was at that time. I don't know about the SCR-720 specifically, but many early radar systems' returns could be misinterpreted in a way that a 180 degree bearing error was quite possible. Let's add that the returns were not precise enough to allow the operators to count the contacts (this is a function of the pulse width and antenna beamwidth/rotation speed, if any), so a large group of smaller aircraft would often provide a similar ˜scope picture to one from fewer really large aircraft, so a carrier strike group composed of Vals and Kates would not look too different from a squadron of B-17s, particularly to inexperienced operators.

Like Waldo pointed out, navigation from southern California to Oahu was not as precise then as it is now. It was not unusual for such overseas flights to aim for the general vicinity of the Islands, and then home in on a local radio station or beacon set up for that purpose. If the Fortress flight's course was a quarter degree off to the north, they might easily have ended up approaching Oahu from the northwest rather than the northeast. If the Fortresses were the only scheduled large flight coming in, any large radar contact coming in at approximately the right time would be identified as the incoming B-17s.

Since the Japanese attack was an unscheduled flight (to say the least), it would be an obvious assumption for the lieutenant to make. Nobody knew (discounting the various conspiracy theories and vague warnings) that the Japanese had committed themselves to the course of war or that their carriers were anywhere near striking distance of the Hawaiian Islands.

cheers

horseback

slipBall
09-24-2007, 03:48 PM
Excellent flick....just amazing how they re-skinned to make them look the part. Plus all the crew that kept those birds flying, I think 500 men....they wanted to use the real aircraft, but it would have cost way too much money to bring them over, and then make them air worthy

MB_Avro_UK
09-24-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the movie was a quality production, air battles were very realistic and visceral,


Yeah, especially the wing-walking P-40s flying through the streets of Honolulu and Zeros crashing into each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we talking about the same film? The discussion here is about the 1970 film 'Tora Tora Tora'. NOT the recent Hollywood abomination!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bremspropeller
09-24-2007, 04:03 PM
He was talkin about PH, dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
09-24-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
He was talkin about PH, dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yep..there's a bit of confusion in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-24-2007, 06:09 PM
There was no option to use real Japanese aircraft in TORA! TORA! TORA!. In 1970 there wasn't a single flyable Zero in the world. To this day, there is not a single Val or Kate left in existence in one piece (a flyable Val was put together with pieces of a real one in the '60's but it was done with no thought for accuracy---most of it was fantasy). The AT-6 models were the only option the filmmakers had, and were quite an ingenius solution. The Japanese built a full-scale waterline replica of the battleship NAGATO on an island, and a full-scale replica of carrier AKAGI's flight deck. This level of fidelity has never been equalled even by Cameron's remarkable TITANIC film. The film was the maximum solution for the period.

jarink
09-24-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
I was impressed with the political detail and the attempt to be fair to both sides.

This was due in no small part to the film having two production crews - one American and one Japanese. (Check the credits) It was almost like two films that were merged into one.


Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
It was far better than the recent 'Hollyweird' Pearl Harbor release.

This movie was bad on so many levels, it's incredible. About the only way it could have been worse was if J-Lo was cast as the leading lady. I really, really don't like it when Hollywood totally rips apart history like this. As mentioned, there's no way anyone would have volunteered for the RAF, come back for PH, then be a part of an entire Pursuit squadron that gets re-trained to fly B-25 off of a carrier. It's all because of the "big star" mentality of H-wood. I think PH would have been much better if a larger cast (and some main characters split into several parts) was used.

SeaFireLIV
09-24-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by jarink:


This movie was bad on so many levels, it's incredible. About the only way it could have been worse was if J-Lo was cast as the leading lady. I really, really don't like it when Hollywood totally rips apart history like this. As mentioned, there's no way anyone would have volunteered for the RAF, come back for PH, then be a part of an entire Pursuit squadron that gets re-trained to fly B-25 off of a carrier. It's all because of the "big star" mentality of H-wood. I think PH would have been much better if a larger cast (and some main characters split into several parts) was used.

That`s very true, but the bit that really stuck in my craw, and probably many other Brits was when the British Officer says, "I wish we had more like you!" In one go, the movie basically said that every one else`s effort In Britain was rubbish except for Ben affleck, the American. They must`ve paid that English acter a truck load of cash for that one line.

No offense to Americans, just the way it came out to the Brits on screen and that`s my patriotic duty done for the day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

leitmotiv
09-24-2007, 08:37 PM
I'm an American, and that film was just garbage. Oh, and, of course, there was the bit about the foul language of Jimmy Doolittle---he didn't use it. It was a fabrication. The final offense was that idiotic scene with Roosevelt willing himself to stand---why, one has to ask, did they believe this was necessary? This stupid film was a cartoon, a comic book, a whimsy of some coked-up screenplay writer who spent two hours on research. It was an attempt to make STAR WARS with P-40s.

heywooood
09-24-2007, 08:43 PM
really - Tora Tora Tora was a bona fide attempt to tell the story from a factual foothold...

Pearl Harbor the film was an attempt to incorporate the film Footloose into a historical backdrop...so pitifull that it defies reason.

It could have been written by a chimp


on another note - after reading a few other posts about the officer who miss interpreted the radar report I think I would like to remove the 'lol' from my previous post...
The early navigation methods and instruments would have easily caused the B-17's to be off the mark, and it would be reasonable for them to locate and home in on the islands from almost any compass point- coupled with the unknown plans of the Japanese - anyone could and likely would have made the same judgement or 'mistake' since we always need a scapegoat.

Maj.Kaos
09-24-2007, 09:52 PM
Food for thought. What would have happened if there were no scheduled B-17 flights that day?

What would have happened if the US carriers were in harbor?

What would have happened if the IJN carriers were spotted before launching?

What if Superman was chillin' on the beach that morning?

As regards PH the movie...it stunk piles of ****, but Hollywood made big bank on it, and that's all they really care about. The writer was Randall Wallace, who also wrote Braveheart, the fictionalized William Wallace story with Mel Gibson. He also produced We Were Soldiers, another Mel Gibson movie.

slo_1_2_3
09-24-2007, 10:39 PM
So I've always been curious where they got the footage of the p-40's blowing up and smashing into suff and all that, I remember one p-40 rolls into a plane while burning and ground crews were running all over right in front of it and one guy fell while the thing was rolling towards them, Was this recreated or was it actual footage of the attack? I kinda figured it wasn't actual footage because it's in color , but I don't know . If they recreated It annoys me that they broke all that stuff. And then theres the B-17 that lands with one wheel, whered they get that? I'm pretty sure I've seen that used in more than one movie

strider1
09-24-2007, 10:42 PM
In keeping with the navigation comments about Tora and the use of radio stations to home in, there is a short scene in the movie that the air boss had asked the Honolulu radio station to stay on the air all night in expectation of the B-17's arrival. Later, the radioman in the lead B-17 tunes in Honolulu and tells the captain who then puts his earset on. The soundtrack goes to some Hawaiian music.
Or did I dream all that? lol

heywooood
09-24-2007, 10:44 PM
not a dream - it was infact the case - a local radio station stayed on the air for the purpose of serving asa beacon for the inbound B-17's...

The IJN airmen also located the same signal and used it for their purpose.

partic_3
09-25-2007, 01:21 AM
Food for thought.
So the fact that many now believe that the US knew that the attack was coming as a result of the breaking of the Japanese codes cuts no ice with any of you? I'm not saying that this is definitely the case but it's a theory that's out there. It also makes a lot of sense when looked at in relation to the geopolitical realities of the time. Personally I have no problem with the idea that Roosevelt allowed the attack to take place in order to generate public support for the war. If he hadn't, as an Australian, I would probably now be speaking Japanese!
My observation of people generally is that they are not nearly cynical enough when they read what the winners write about history.

cawimmer430
09-25-2007, 02:17 AM
In the love story "Pearl Harbour" movie (Ben Affleck etc.), doesn't Affleck's character claim that the P-40 is more maneuvrable but slower than the Zero? Huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ViktorViktor
09-25-2007, 04:06 AM
I remember that there was a film in which John Belushi sat in the cockpit of a (shark-mouthed?)P-40.

Doese anybody know what was the name of the film and if it had anything to do with Pearl Harbor ?

MrMojok
09-25-2007, 04:09 AM
That was called '1941'.

It is about paranoia about a possible Japanese invasion in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

JG53Frankyboy
09-25-2007, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`m sure you don`t mean it, but that last `was it provided by the British?` makes it sound like you`re blaming the UK for Pearl harbour! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif lol.

Saw it too. An excellent film and defo better than `that` newer one...

Blaming the UK for Pearl Harbour? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
................ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

at least the Royal Navy "showed" the japanese that it is possible to attack Ships with airborne torpedoes in a harbour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - Tarent in 1940 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
09-25-2007, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by partic_3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Food for thought.
So the fact that many now believe that the US knew that the attack was coming as a result of the breaking of the Japanese codes cuts no ice with any of you? My observation of people generally is that they are not nearly cynical enough when they read what the winners write about history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well cynicism is one thing, but looking for the truth always has priority IMO. It's not as the US did that well (before landings and ground combat where US and Filippino forces fought very bravely) in the Far East even after Pearl Harbor most planes were also caught on the ground. Lots of stuff I've read have put that theory to rest as far as I'm concerned, breaking codes is not like opening someone's mail. If you want I can send you some stuff or point you elsewhere.

JG53Frankyboy
09-25-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
Pearl Harbor could've been a decent enough movie outside of the fact that no pilot could be in the Eagle Squadron then get to Pearl in time for the attack, and then been a B-25 pilot for the Doolittle Raid. The love story aspect is just typical Hollywood formula for having to please both the Guys and the Ladies because most of us know our girlfriends/wives won't sit through a war picture unless there's a tragic love story attached to it. Personally I liked the special effects, it was technically superior to Tora. I thought the movie was a quality production, air battles were very realistic and visceral, but the basic premise of the plot just fell short of reality. I mean just either way you cut it Afflecks' character was halfway around the world and that in itself would prevent him from getting from the BoB to the PTO in time for Dec.7th. ....................

well, Eagle Squadron established Septmeber 40 http://fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/es.html .
Pearl Harbour Dec 1941.................. anyway, it was a Film - i didnt expected a historical lesson

Blutarski2004
09-25-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
Pearl Harbor the film was an attempt to incorporate the film Footloose into a historical backdrop...so pitifull that it defies reason.

It could have been written by a chimp.



..... The producers had actually tried to retain the services of a primate to write the script for PH. Unfortunately, they all had prior project commitments and a team of regular Hollywood screen writers had to be brought in as a substitute.

leitmotiv
09-25-2007, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Pearl Harbor the film was an attempt to incorporate the film Footloose into a historical backdrop...so pitifull that it defies reason.

It could have been written by a chimp.



..... The producers had actually tried to retain the services of a primate to write the script for PH. Unfortunately, they all had prior project commitments and a team of regular Hollywood screen writers had to be brought in as a substitute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh heh. Well put!

gkll
09-25-2007, 12:22 PM
Whether or no FDR knew of the attack and allowed it to proceed... there is a case to be made that if the US Navy had had warning, they would have put to sea with the battlefleet. These old battleships might have been caught by the Japanese with their deadly torpedoes and tactics, and sunk. At sea, the loss of life could have been much worse. Remember what a shock it was for the US and the Brits etc when they realized just what fine aviators and navy the Japanese had.. in late 41 no one had any idea they were all about to have their butts handed to them on a plate for 6 months, into early 42.

Pearl harbor forced the US into reliance on their carriers, as they had no battlefleet. May have been a good thing... no more battleship admirals looking for a gunfight, the future was forced on the US and the carrier admirals came to the fore by necessity. And sunk in harbor means many more lives saved.....

slipBall
09-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
So I've always been curious where they got the footage of the p-40's blowing up and smashing into suff and all that, I remember one p-40 rolls into a plane while burning and ground crews were running all over right in front of it and one guy fell while the thing was rolling towards them, Was this recreated or was it actual footage of the attack? I kinda figured it wasn't actual footage because it's in color , but I don't know . If they recreated It annoys me that they broke all that stuff. And then theres the B-17 that lands with one wheel, whered they get that? I'm pretty sure I've seen that used in more than one movie



what they did was re-skin (alum) aircraft to make them look like ww2 aircraft,.....they did not destroy vintage fighters in the making of the film http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


The "Japanese" aircraft carrier was the Anti-Submarine carrier USS Yorktown (CVS-10). The Japanese A6M Zero fighters, and somewhat longer "Kate" torpedo bombers or "Val" dive bombers were heavily modified RCAF Harvard (T-6 Texan) and BT-13 Valiant pilot training aircraft. These aircraft still make appearances at air shows.

The footage of a B-17 Flying Fortress crash was of an actual aircraft that was used in the movie which had problems with a landing gear. Other U.S. aircraft used are the PBY Catalina and P-40 Warhawk. Fiberglass molds were made of a real P-40 used in the filming. The resulting replicas, some with working engines and props, were strafed and blown up during filming.

berg417448
09-25-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:

And then theres the B-17 that lands with one wheel, whered they get that? I'm pretty sure I've seen that used in more than one movie

The one wheel B-17 landing wasn't planned...What they filmed was a real emergency landing:

"No doubt the most exciting B-17 footage was the one-wheel landing, a scene not planned for the film but only occurring after one B-17 crew could not get the right main landing gear to extend for landing. The unplanned "opportunity" was siezed upon, with movie cameras being set up to record the crash landing. A large smoke generator was set up, and the scene is quite dramatic as the B-17 appears through a wall of smoke, the right gear obviously not extended. The Fortress glides to a landing, and then the right wing settles to the runway with the resultant propeller crunches of number 3 and 4 engines as the airplane swings around it right wing tip in a staggering ground loop."

http://www.aerovintage.com/tora.htm

MB_Avro_UK
09-25-2007, 04:14 PM
What if...

...the radar warning had been acted upon?

The Japanese submarine attack in the film was dealt with at a low operational level by a junior ship's captain without consultation with higher command.

The radar gave about an hours warning of the attack.

What would have been done in 1 hour by the defences?

Would the Battleships put to sea? And if so would this have made things worse as far as casualties for the ship's crews?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Waldo.Pepper
09-25-2007, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Whether or no FDR knew of the attack and allowed it to proceed...

This kind of stuff is nonsense. If any countries leader had let something like that occur they would get lynched WHEN it became public knowledge. Nothing this big stays secret for very long. Politicians (certainly contemporary ones) are by and large cowards not willing to risk their own skins let alone their careers for anything. (IMHO!)


Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The radar gave about an hours warning of the attack. What would have been done in 1 hour by the defences?

If an hour is correct nothing would/could have been done.


Would the Battleships put to sea?

Nothing again - takes too long to build up a head of steam. Also 'twas Sunday. Not enough guys to do much.

leitmotiv
09-25-2007, 04:34 PM
The Japanese torpedo bombers took severe losses in the first wave---even with total surprise. If all the battleships had been at battle stations when the torp bombers came at them, chances were good the torp bombers would have been wiped out. This would have, at least, spared three battleships from being sunk. One hour could have given the fighters a chance to scramble and be ready for the Japanese. That a handful of fighters did a very good job, one can only imagine what many times their number could have accomplished. One last thing, ENTERPRISE was southwest of Oahu. If she had been alerted, and with knowledge of which direction the attack was coming, she could have mounted a surprise attack on the Japanese. Any surviving aircraft on Oahu could have counterattacked. The Japanese did not have radar, and their ships were frequently victims of surprise attacks in 1942, an alerted Oahu might have resulted in a nasty set-back for the Japanese right at the start---they couldn't afford to lose aircraft or ships.

slo_1_2_3
09-25-2007, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
So I've always been curious where they got the footage of the p-40's blowing up and smashing into suff and all that, I remember one p-40 rolls into a plane while burning and ground crews were running all over right in front of it and one guy fell while the thing was rolling towards them, Was this recreated or was it actual footage of the attack? I kinda figured it wasn't actual footage because it's in color , but I don't know . If they recreated It annoys me that they broke all that stuff. And then theres the B-17 that lands with one wheel, whered they get that? I'm pretty sure I've seen that used in more than one movie



what they did was re-skin (alum) aircraft to make them look like ww2 aircraft,.....they did not destroy vintage fighters in the making of the film http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


The "Japanese" aircraft carrier was the Anti-Submarine carrier USS Yorktown (CVS-10). The Japanese A6M Zero fighters, and somewhat longer "Kate" torpedo bombers or "Val" dive bombers were heavily modified RCAF Harvard (T-6 Texan) and BT-13 Valiant pilot training aircraft. These aircraft still make appearances at air shows.

The footage of a B-17 Flying Fortress crash was of an actual aircraft that was used in the movie which had problems with a landing gear. Other U.S. aircraft used are the PBY Catalina and P-40 Warhawk. Fiberglass molds were made of a real P-40 used in the filming. The resulting replicas, some with working engines and props, were strafed and blown up during filming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And now I know, Thanky you slipball and berg417448

MB_Avro_UK
09-25-2007, 05:25 PM
So...what about the third wave that the Japanese did not launch but was planned?

Would the radar have detected the attack as real?

And would there have been fighters available to respond?

I'm getting into the realms of 'what if' but I find it interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-25-2007, 05:57 PM
The Japanese themselves noted how ferocious U.S. AA was by the second wave, but, when you calculate the advantages they could have received by blowing up the tank farm and smashing the machine shops, it probably would have been worth it. It would have taken months to ship enough oil to Qahu to replace the lost tanks. Meanwhile, the USN could not have launched offensive operations.

gkll
09-25-2007, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Whether or no FDR knew of the attack and allowed it to proceed...

This kind of stuff is nonsense. If any countries leader had let something like that occur they would get lynched WHEN it became public knowledge. Nothing this big stays secret for very long. Politicians (certainly contemporary ones) are by and large cowards not willing to risk their own skins let alone their careers for anything. (IMHO!)


Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The radar gave about an hours warning of the attack. What would have been done in 1 hour by the defences?

If an hour is correct nothing would/could have been done.


Would the Battleships put to sea?

Nothing again - takes too long to build up a head of steam. Also 'twas Sunday. Not enough guys to do much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure Waldo note I said 'set aside' that potential issue... just think if warning was in days not hours. That is what I meant.

How common is knowledge of the Reischtag fire and the linkage to the suspension of rights in Germany? It may have been an attack by Hitler and the boys on themselves... however this didn't surface in the run-up to the war but seems clear enough now. Anyways believe what you want... in my view and from a limited look-see I must say I agree with the previous poster who suggested it 'may have' happened just that way. Are you so sure it didn't? Just because FDR was such a nice guy (new deal and all that...)? Or secrets can't be kept? I think they can, and may have been in this case, for some time... however it could all be smoke too.

jarink
09-25-2007, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Would the Battleships put to sea?

Nothing again - takes too long to build up a head of steam. Also 'twas Sunday. Not enough guys to do much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite so. The Nevada was able to get underway only about half an hour after she was torpedoed. She nearly sank in the channel out of PH, but ended up grounding herself instead when her captain realized the danger. Had she blocked the channel, it would have put a very, very serious dent in the USN's operations over the next couple of months.

As mentioned earlier, if the fleet had been able to put to sea, the USN's losses could have been much more serious. Ships sunk in deep water could not have been salvaged and the loos of life could have been much higher.

Enforcer572005
09-25-2007, 08:38 PM
MAny of the replica T-6/BT-13 Zekes, Kates, and Vals are still flying at airshows. The commemorative air force has about 20 of them htat they use to put on a great re-creation.

I posted a few shots of them in this thread I posted recently about an airshow near here.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9471078095

Regarding the incredible P-40 airbase attack scene that is probably the most realistic and well done of any war movie, I just got the collectors edition of the movie Tora, and it includes narration by the director. It turns out that scene was included several times from different directions, but it wasn't supposed to happen that way. Those stunt men are really running for their lives.

THey used several droned P-40E replicas to run down the runways and explode (no B or Cs availible and htey wanted them to look like the flying ones-notice the fake cowl guns?). These drones were not SUPPOSED to fly....however, when one was going about 30 knts, it became airborne, totally freaking out everybody, and they then lost total control since it only had a steerable tailwheel.

The stuntmen had all carefully been assigned where to run during this scene, and many of the static fake P-40s were loaded with explosives and gas. It was a very dangerous batch of stunts they were doing. The P-40 drone was supposed to just explode and careene down the runway.

Well, it lifted off, then skimmed along the runway right into the parked planes, and all hell broke loose. those stunt guys just hauled A and ran wherever they could find cover...notice that some hide behind a car. That just wasnt supposed to happen, but nobody was hurt, andthe scene became the envy of Hollywood action directors ever since.

The B-17 one wheel landing was an accident to...it got stuck, so htey decided to use it in the film to...another bonus. The director didnt even mention that though, I just knew it from interviews in old Air Classics mags.

THey used HUGE full size partial models of Nevada and Arizona built on barges (notice you never see the forward half of nevada as it sails past). They also had a huge spotting top mast built to for the AZ.

There were also many LARGE ship models built for battleship row as well. I cant find much info on thier fate, but some are still in assorted museums.

They were fortunate that the navy still had many WW2 era ships (Fletcher DDs, the Yorktown) as well as others that could pass (like the DDR used as the Ward). Unlike PH movie which had Spruance class DDs and Knox DEs in mothballs at Pearl used as props. May as well have put F-15s on the ramp at Wheeler field.

Just see if you can get the collectors edition with the commentary....I got mine at a Fred's store for 9 bucks.

And FDR didn't allow pearl to be attacked. I suggest Gordon Prange's "At Dawn We Slept"...the most exhaustive research, about 4 decades worth. his earlier research was the basis of much of the movie . The theories promoting that are based on total revisionism (btw the History channel did a great show on that recently) It was just total incompetence and stupidity on the part of the military and political leaders, a total lack of training, and alot of thought filtering (as well as some incredibly bad luck).

And as an American, I am totally embarrassed by the stupid PH movie...totally.

Breeze147
09-26-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Pearl Harbor the film was an attempt to incorporate the film Footloose into a historical backdrop...so pitifull that it defies reason.

It could have been written by a chimp.



..... The producers had actually tried to retain the services of a primate to write the script for PH. Unfortunately, they all had prior project commitments and a team of regular Hollywood screen writers had to be brought in as a substitute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, the chimps were busy on "Battle Of Britain".

Blutarski2004
09-26-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Pearl Harbor the film was an attempt to incorporate the film Footloose into a historical backdrop...so pitifull that it defies reason.

It could have been written by a chimp.



..... The producers had actually tried to retain the services of a primate to write the script for PH. Unfortunately, they all had prior project commitments and a team of regular Hollywood screen writers had to be brought in as a substitute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, the chimps were busy on "Battle Of Britain". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Well, if you are a devotee of nature shows and anthropology, you are undoudtedly aware that a physical trait of most chimps is a stiff upper lip .....

;-]

general_kalle
09-26-2007, 01:30 PM
long time ago i read a book about a secret mission to berlin, main charater was the Writer ( Christopher Chrighton based on his experienced on that missian.
he was as an Agent for a Secret British unit. lead by Desmond Morton, Louis mountbatten (leader of the british Navy) and no one else than Churchill.

anyway in the book Christopher tells about one of his previus mission (he's feeling guilt) that he had to Kill a Dutch submarine crew with Gass to prevent them from Warning USA about the Hugh Fleet they had see - the japanese Carrierfleet on their way to pearl
the british didnt want the americans warned because otherwise the japanese might have called the attack off and USA wouldn't have entered the war which was in the Brits Interest

on the backside of the book he states that there are no proofs of some of the things thats told and that its up to the reader to decide whether you believe it or not. (theres a couple of different conspiracy theories in that book)

i dont know if i want believe it but its a scary thought anyway

BOA_Allmenroder
09-26-2007, 01:32 PM
Little know anecdote.

The guy who does Toshiro Mifune's (Yamamoto) english voiceover is the same voice of Master Gracey in Walt Disney's (Calf and Florida) Haunted Mansion Theme Park Ride.

He also did the narration for "The St. Valentine's Day Massacre" : 'on the morning of the last day of his life....'

Sillius_Sodus
09-26-2007, 02:38 PM
I remember that after the filming they put the aircraft up for sale. $7500 US for a Val, Kate or Zero. Flyable condition of course.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus