Any ex-LW adviser for 1969 BofB film?

[tcolvin]

I idly watched a bit of the annual showing of the 1969 BofB film, but could take no more when two converted Percival Proctors playing at Stukas, and radio-controlled Stuka models, were shown glide-bombing the Ventnor Chain Home facility with unerring accuracy and to the noise of sirens and without swing-down bomb cradles.
See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBO61qg-kc

There were many Germans in the cast, even speaking German to each other, and many obvious efforts had been made to achieve accuracy, going as far as destroying a WWII hangar at Duxford, but I've resigned myself never to seeing a realistic vertical Stuka attack portrayed on film.
Why is that, I wonder?

Tony

[biltongbru]

Interesting to note that stuka pilots were not in favour of the sirens and in the case of I./St.G 3. all pilots decided to remove the sirens from the planes since the French campaign. The reasons: 1) the propellered sirens slightly reduced the airspeed of normal flight. 2) Even at normal flight the sirens also made a noise that the crews did not like.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

I idly watched a bit of the annual showing of the 1969 BofB film, but could take no more when two converted Percival Proctors playing at Stukas, and radio-controlled Stuka models, were shown glide-bombing the Ventnor Chain Home facility with unerring accuracy and to the noise of sirens and without swing-down bomb cradles.
See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBO61qg-kc
Why is that, I wonder?

Tony

That's ignoring the really critical inaccuracies: the Squadron Leader's cottage has a 1960s glass front door and electric bell-push, as well as an up-and-over metal garage door. That lot would have cost about £5 to disguise!

Oh, and when the bombers are heading across the North Sea, the formation leader's callsign is "Tomate Eins" (Tomato One) which comes up on the subtitles as "Tomato Heinz" — perhaps the translator was fond of tinned food?

[Mikkel Plannthin]

As I recall it, Adolf Galland was technical advisor to this production.

Regards

Mikkel Plannthin

[Doug Stankey]

To attempt to answer this issue, I made a quick review of a book I read thirty years ago:

Mosley, Leonard. The Battle of Britain - the making of a film (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969). ISBN 297 17909 8

The above book emphasizes that Adolf Galland was the primary, if not sole, official ex-Luftwaffe advisor. However, Theo Osterkamp was also involved in the making of this picture, although in what capacity is uncertain. I expect that Galland was the interface between the film makers (Saltzman, Guy Hamilton, Ben Fisz) and the Germans. There are references in the book to Galland checking with veterans on what actually happened to critique this or that perceived excess in the script. There were also disagreements on the basic facts, something which is better known today but an issue that still lingers on in some respects.

Thus one may conclude that the film had one official Luftwaffe veteran advisor but many "hidden" ones unofficially.

Regarding the Stukas...

Yes, the inadequate representations of this unique aircraft type is quite grating (as are the highly wrong engines on the Bf 109s and He 111s!) but the film maker's options were extremely limited at the time. They could hardly build accurate replicas let alone make them dive! By today, there are some options:

In the mid 1990s I was at an airshow at Elmira/Corning airfield ( later home to the National Warplane Museum) and I set my disbelieving eyes on a half (?) size Stuka. It had some simplifications, particularly in the engine area, but on the whole it was a valiant effort. Incredibly, the fellow who owned and built it was a local guy, Dick Kurzenberger. I looked him up in the phone book and asked him why he built it. He responded that he had been told that no private person could make such a thing and he wagered that that he could! Later I saw and photographed the thing flying along. He also stated that he flew the thing for battle re-enactment societies (presumeably themed WWII and not Civil War!).

Another option now would be to use detailed and accurate radio controlled models. Last year I discovered that a small local firm, Kondor Model Products, makes a beautiful Bf 110 (7 foot wingspan) and a Ju 87B (80 inch wingspan), a Do 335 (84 inch wingspan) among other things. Take a look at www.kmp.ca

Of course, nowadays computer generated graphics seems to be capable of anything!

[Ruy Horta]

Didn't Galland pull out because of his disagreements with the makers of the film (on various issues including the use of the Nazi salute).

[David Ransome]

Where exactly did you see the converted Percival Proctors?

My understanding was that one or two had been partially converted but never used as the handling characteristics were awful and that the makers went for scale models in the end. Study of the clip you attached shows these models in action . If you have a look at the Rudhall books on the making of the film the differences between the Ju87 and the converted PP are quite evident - less wing camber, cowling/cockpit/fuselage ratios etc. Books still in storage so can't quote pages etc. but maybe someone else can confirm.

The Mosley book to which Doug refers is excellent and outlines the 'feuds' between Galland and the film makers. Still have my original 1969 copy presented to me for something or other at a school speech day.

Regards

David

[tcolvin]

I now realise there were no converted Proctors but only models.

All questions answered, thank you, except that Kondor Models don't seem to claim their new Stuka has functioning dive brakes and bomb cradle, although there can be no reason they couldn't be added and the model dived vertically from scale 8,000 feet. Presumably models can now be flown with the controller using a joystick sitting in front of a screen fed with video streamed from the cockpit.

So hopefully next time we could see Blitzkrieg re-enacted with all systems operating. Producers will still have to remember to train actors appropriately for 1939/40, since the common view of soldiers has been affected by Saving Private Ryan with troops behaving like pot-smoking Vietnam-era GIs.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

… although there can be no reason they couldn't be added and the model dived vertically from scale 8,000 feet.

Presumably models can now be flown with the controller using a joystick sitting in front of a screen fed with video streamed from the cockpit.
Tony

1) Airframe stress on the pull-out, requiring stronger, heavier structure? I guess it would be a problem in a model, as in the real thing.

2) Here's your answer!

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

1) Airframe stress on the pull-out, requiring stronger, heavier structure? I guess it woul be a problem in a model, as in the real thing.

Not today Nick with carbon fiber and Kevlar. Scale jets doing 200mph and over stay together in the air, so I can't see a problem with the pull-out of a Ju-87. With programmable controls even the pullout would a cinch.

It is not hard to understand why the Germans failed during the BoB with Spit IXs as opposition (see 2:30 in the video)