While shooting down German planes that are performing diving manoeuvres at the same time?
Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan's next film
- Thread starter Nikhil
- Start date
While shooting down German planes that are performing diving manoeuvres at the same time?
I thought that was a slightly strange criticism too.
But - can a Spitfire fire it's weapon while stalled? I expect so, but would like to know for sure.
It's not completely absurd, and he shot down just the one German plane when the engine cut out.
I bet it's happened before, all it takes is one lucky hit.
I'm not sure that luck ever looks good in a film, but it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility.
Yes it definitely be able to fire. I think they used to have synchronising gears so the bullets would go through the spinning propellers but in this case that wouldn't be necessary!
This seems like a good guide to the (in)accuracies.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/what_s_fact_and_what_s_fiction_in_dunkirk.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/20/what_s_fact_and_what_s_fiction_in_dunkirk.html
It is ridiculously absurd. It was difficult enough for them to shoot down planes when they were fully able to manoeuvre, as the film itself spends considerable time demonstrating. He would have needed to glide into position with limited turning capacity, and almost no if any control over height, and zero control over speed, and then shoot down what looked like a Stuka dive bomber, while it was on a dive bombing run, and then somehow shot it to one side so it didn't just crash into the pier. Just a few minutes earlier in the film it had taken him ages to get one shot in on a bomber 3 times the size that was flying in a straight line, while he had a working engine.
I bet it hasn't...and definitely not at the precise moment to save the commander of the whole army out of nowhere. It was silly over dramatization.
There are loads of amazing stories about Dunkirk that are factual so there was no need at all to include some fictional unrealistic nonsense. I'm not sure what it was supposed to add to the film as it just seemed out of place to me. You have an entire film dedicated to showing you what a struggle it was for everyone, and at the same time are telling people a spitfire can just glide about over Dunkirk without an engine, shooting down Luftwaffe planes with ease.
Iirc the smaller boat weren't meant to shuttle back to england but merely as a taxi to the bigger boats
for those of you after details/historical accuracy try:
www.adls.org.uk/t1/ and bbc.co.uk/archive/dunkirk/
www.adls.org.uk/t1/ and bbc.co.uk/archive/dunkirk/
I mean compared to films that flat out break the laws of physics, or films that are so historically inaccurate as may as well be set on another planet (Gladiator)... It's not bad.
It's a sill over-dramatic moment, but didn't make me pass water.
Yes but in fairness it's supposed to be a film based on actual events, and it, actually, went to some lengths to try and stick to those actual events accurately...more so than I expected from a Nolan film. I mean it dramatized some stuff but pretty much all of it was based on things that happened. It even showed the men on the beach during and after rescue, being pissed off at the RAF for perceiving they weren't helping them...then at the end you have this random bit with the floating superhero spitfire saving everyone. It was just extremely out of place.
One thing I would give the film biggest credit for is that it managed to come across as a fairly grim and uncomfortable experience, yet I don't remember any particularly graphic violence at all. Can't remember another war film that's managed to do that. Most either have limbs flying/exploding everywhere or violence as the horror factor, or just come across like war is a right laugh.
I also think the human brain is incredibly bad at understanding velocities higher than 20mph. There is little in the natural world we have to deal with that travels faster than that.
Thats why you get people asking questions like, if an elevator was falling, and you jumped at the right time, could you survive? Err no. Fall from 20m up (around six stories) and you are falling at 70 km/h when you hit the ground. Even if you did manage to push your legs off the bottom of an elevator in free fall, an average human can jump 1 meter if in good shape?
So maximum you are taking off 0.45 m/s off your 20 m/s verticle velocity. Or from 70 km/h to 68.5 km/h.
Anyway, the spitfire shooting down the german bomber despite coming at an angle to it, travelling slowly, and being low to the ground.... Probably noodle is right and its not possible
Thats why you get people asking questions like, if an elevator was falling, and you jumped at the right time, could you survive? Err no. Fall from 20m up (around six stories) and you are falling at 70 km/h when you hit the ground. Even if you did manage to push your legs off the bottom of an elevator in free fall, an average human can jump 1 meter if in good shape?
So maximum you are taking off 0.45 m/s off your 20 m/s verticle velocity. Or from 70 km/h to 68.5 km/h.
Anyway, the spitfire shooting down the german bomber despite coming at an angle to it, travelling slowly, and being low to the ground.... Probably noodle is right and its not possible
There's nothing superheroish about tom hardy shooting down the plane. One is a figther and the other one is a bomber, fighter would always win, it's just the matter of whether the pilot wanna risk his last remaining fuel to chase them.
In war case many soldiers risk their life to save another soldier, let alone boatloads of them.
What would you do if you're in his position? (although if i were him I'd probably eject on a friendly part of the shore) lol
i was being facetious, or at least trying to be
I think he's calling him a superhero as he can bend the laws of physics and faesibility
You must be fun at parties.
You are probably right, it would have been extremely difficult to pull off with all those variables. Not impossible, though.
Again...It was just one plane.
Tom Hardy was flying the plane ffs. Even if he ejected, landed on top of the bomber, ripped it off with his bare hands and then jumped into the sea swimming all across it to emerge straight in London, it'd still be realistic. feck off.
He didn't risk his last remaining fuel to chase the plane, as he'd already run out of fuel and was gliding before the plane even appeared. He was gliding across the beach front when the German plane appeared and approached towards the beach from the water...he then decided to turn around and chase and shoot it down...using his glider. Conveniently the film didn't choose to show us exactly how he managed to do this....probably because it would have been completely impossible.
To be honest, even in a James Bond film this would have been stretching it. This wasn't a James Bond film. It was a film based on a thing that actually happened.
If I were him, seeing as I'm so brilliant I managed to turn my engineless plane around and have enough control over it to shoot another plane down, I might have considered turning it around again and landing it on the beach with the allies so I could be rescued or maybe even refuel the plane...instead of suddenly deciding I had no control over the plane and landing it fecking miles from anywhere and getting captured.
I don't agree that all the central characters are average joes. Dawson knows the names of planes by their sound because his elder son fought in the war for 3 weeks, the guy tommy or whatever has a lot of miraculous escapes. Tom Hardy who doesn't crash his plane even though he has limited gas and his indicator broke.
There are lots of convenient escapes and lot of unrealism.
Plus the real incident happens at the peak of world war (1940 or so iirc) but the film makes us feel as if the war is nearing the end and Germany has barely any troops left with a few isolated attacks here and there.
There are lots of convenient escapes and lot of unrealism.
Plus the real incident happens at the peak of world war (1940 or so iirc) but the film makes us feel as if the war is nearing the end and Germany has barely any troops left with a few isolated attacks here and there.
Eh? I certainly didn't get that feeling!
With regards to Germany not committing everything they had to crush the French and British in Dunkirk.. isn't that because that's exactly what happened?
The Germans had avoided the heavily fortified Maginot line by smashing through Belgium and cut the French army in two
Germany now had an army to the North, an Army to the South, and Paris to the West. To say that their priorities were divided is perhaps an understatement. All whilst their tanks were already over stretched.
Why they didn't destroy Dunkirk, probably you will read lots of different answers. The truth presumably is somewhere in between.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dunkirk-75th-anniversary-real-reason-hitler-let-british-troops-go-1503201
https://www.quora.com/Could-the-Germans-have-beaten-the-Allies-at-Dunkirk
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Hitler-halt-the-advance-on-Dunkirk-for-48-hours
I'm ashamed to admit this one day. one week, one hour thing went over my head until I read this thread. I'm sure there are a lot more who didn't appreciate this. Enjoyed the film though,7.2/10.
Didn't really make sense.
I think you're right.
Honest. Didn't remember that part. I thought he's on his last galon of fuel. Apologies.
Could have been hitler learnt from tsun tsu.
There's a part that says dont push a desperate enemy as they'll fight back with all they have. Give them a perceived way out reducing their will to fight while routing them
Tbf to hurler without a hindsight there's merit in each argument.
It's still considered one of the biggest mistakes Hitler made.
Why? Would have killing or capturing an extra 200,000 brits (most of the French would be captured of killed upon returning to france) make much difference.
Obviously D Day required a hell of a lot of troops, and invading Britain would also be a lot ***easier. But really I dont think it would make all that much difference (in relation to the wider war).
From memory, the biggest losses during WW2 were from Germany vs Russia, and surely Hitlers biggest mistake was invading Russia.
Last edited:
Britain would have been more or less open for invasion should they have lost so many troops. Instead, by successfully withdrawing they were able to turn a mess into a positive. Some of their best leaders cut their teeth during operation dynamo too. There were a lot of lessons learnt.
To address some of the other points raised in this thread:
There actually was a 16 year old boy on one of the boats. He was given a gun by the navy commander too. I'm guessing the film character was loosely based on him.
The British lost a lot of their destroyers and bigger ships during daytime bombing by the Germans. Apparently at times there was a many as 100 bombers in the sky's. Hence a lot of extractions were moved to night times.
A lot of the small boats were not fishing boats but Dutch barges, lifeboats, fire service boats, anything they could lay their hands on. The fastest speed was 6 knots. Some of the boats were unsuitable for such crossing and had to be towed.
Around 70% of evacuations were done by the 'big' boats.
The Germans bombed the shit out of Dunkirk 'harbour' so the only feasible point was the mole. The British engineers made an alternative way off th beach by driving trucks into the sea, creature a type of jetty.
Some French soldiers did steal the uniforms of dead brits in order to get on the boats. There were numerous reports of French getting pushed off by British soldiers, and fights breaking out on beaches. Some officers were shot by troops when trying to break them up.
There are reports of soldiers committing suicide by shooting themselves or walking into the sea.
There were 4 divisions of Indian soldiers there - apparently they were the calmest under pressure and fought almost to the end. They were evacuated and later fought in Africa.
There were very little raf planes over Dunkirk itself, most of them were fighting over the sea or further inland, the British actually suffered heavy losses. This is why the troops on the beach thought there was no air support as they were getting straffed and bombed on the beach.
There was a lone spitfire dug up on the beach years later.
Garrisons of troops who surrendered to the Germans were murdered.
Btw if you're interested read a great book called 'Dunkirk - A miracle of deliverance'
according to wikipedia (I know not the best source) there were 700 small boats that went to Dunkirk. The most trips any one boat made was 7 (The Medway Queen, a paddle steamer)
Indeed the biggest losses were from USSR and Germany.
Without the 300,000 lifted from the beaches of Dunkirk, then its possible that Britain would have fallen. Without Britain, then North Africa falls and the Middle east Falls.
With no UK to fight there are extra troops to throw against the Soviets, there is no loss of war production due to air raids, there is no syphoning of troops, materiel and Generals to fight in North Africa, the full weight of the Luftwaffe could be thrown against the Soviets, with access to Middle East Oil there is an increased industrial capacity in Germany (more than you would expect as the Germans would not have to use 20KG of coal to produce 1KG of synthetic oil), the access to huge numbers of slave labourers from north africa to increase their inductrial capacity further, the british industrial capacity would have added to the german industrial capacity, there would have been more recruits for the Waffen SS (dont underestimate the numbers who would have joined from the UK, just look at the numbers from occupied territories), when the US did enter the war there would be no forward base (UK or North Africa) to act a springboard into a second front on mainland europe, there would be no north sea/arctic convoys to resupply the Soviets, the Kreigsmarine would have had unfettered access to the Atlantic and India Oceans
and on
and on
and on
Even if the Uk hadnt fallen then North Africa and the middle east would as there would not have been 300,000 troops available to send there to protect them. Without the middle east then the RAF wouldnt have been able to attack Germany and war production would have been badly affected because of fuel shortages
Last edited:
I meant on the Western front.
I thought they were showing the story of that guy they rescued from the sinking boat.
I'm not sure how much I believe that. It would have made it easier for sure, but the Navy and RAF would have been key factors in the defence of Britain (as they were anyway) and Operation Sea Lion was never actioned because the Nazis could never gain supremacy on the sea or in the air.
The big question mark is how much a heavy defeat at Dunkirk might have influenced the UK to come to terms, but I really don't think it would have made it particularly feasible for a Nazi invasion to the UK mainland.
Thought it was a beautifully crafted film.
Pity it'll be used to peddle the myth that the British were saviours of the world.
Pity it'll be used to peddle the myth that the British were saviours of the world.
Good post
I was a little underwhelmed to be honest - it's a wonderfully crafted film from a technical perspective but by making a conscious decision to not have much dialogue, big set pieces or a big bombastic score etc, I think it lacked a bit of impact.
The decision not to resort to cliche was interesting and different, yet I never really cared about any of the characters - I found it strange to concentrate on these 'small' stories but without having any characterisation or the actors, well acting...I think it would have been better to have all unknowns - there seemed little point having Tom Hardy when he barely speaks or shows his face...also if they were going for the 'real' non-Hollywood story, it was a bizarre decision to cast Harry Styles, one of the most famous people on the planet in his acting debut...I actually thought he was pretty good but it distracted me and took me out of the immersion.
I was expecting to be blown away and to be really moved but despite knowing the historical significance, I never really was. I get what they were doing and I've heard the argument that there are plenty of other films like that and they were trying something different...I understand that but ultimately, I don't think it was as good as the hype suggested - I still thought it was very good but not quite great.
The decision not to resort to cliche was interesting and different, yet I never really cared about any of the characters - I found it strange to concentrate on these 'small' stories but without having any characterisation or the actors, well acting...I think it would have been better to have all unknowns - there seemed little point having Tom Hardy when he barely speaks or shows his face...also if they were going for the 'real' non-Hollywood story, it was a bizarre decision to cast Harry Styles, one of the most famous people on the planet in his acting debut...I actually thought he was pretty good but it distracted me and took me out of the immersion.
I was expecting to be blown away and to be really moved but despite knowing the historical significance, I never really was. I get what they were doing and I've heard the argument that there are plenty of other films like that and they were trying something different...I understand that but ultimately, I don't think it was as good as the hype suggested - I still thought it was very good but not quite great.
That was absolutely dreadful. Honestly might be up there with the worst films I've ever seen.
What? You disagree?
I'd say the best thing about Britain's participation in the war was, not the victory over Germany, but rather the forced end to British tyranny in their colonies.