WWII Air Force Expert Rates 8 Dogfights In Movies | How Real Is It? | Insider
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2023
- Pilot and Air Force officer Lt. Col. Matt Ziemann rates eight World War II dogfight scenes in movies for realism.
He discusses the accuracy of real World War II-era dogfights portrayed in Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" (2017), starring Tom Hardy; Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor" (2001), starring Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett; and "Battle of Britain" (1969), starring Michael Caine. He also comments on the realism of certain fighting tactics and the physics of flight in "Red Tails" (2012), starring Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard; "Unbroken" (2014), starring Domhnall Gleeson; "Midway" (2019), featuring Woody Harrelson and Patrick Wilson; "Memphis Belle" (1990), starring Matthew Modine; and "The Eternal Zero" (2013), starring Junichi Okada.
Lt. Col. Matt Ziemann is an instructor at the Air Force's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base. He teaches 'Leadership and Air Power.' He has been a pilot for 26 years and has experience flying WWII-era planes.
You can find more information about Air University here: www.airuniversity.af.edu
MORE HOW REAL IS IT? VIDEOS:
World War I Expert Rates 6 WWI Battles in Movies
• World War I Expert Rat...
World War I Expert Rates More WWI Battles In Movies
• World War I Expert Rat...
Military Experts Rate 70 Military Battles In Movies And TV
• Military Experts Rate ...
------------------------------------------------------
#Dogfights #HowRealIsIt #Insider
Insider is great journalism about what passionate people actually want to know. That’s everything from news to food, celebrity to science, politics to sports and all the rest. It’s smart. It’s fearless. It’s fun. We push the boundaries of digital storytelling. Our mission is to inform and inspire.
Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: www.insider.com
Insider on Facebook: / insider
Insider on Instagram: / insider
Insider on Twitter: / thisisinsider
Insider on Snapchat: / 2708030621
Insider on TikTok: / insider
WWII Air Force Expert Rates 8 Dogfights In Movies | How Real Is It? | Insider 
Развлечения
My favourite thing about the Dunkirk dogfights was the sound design. I had seen a lot of dogfights before that movie but the clear sounds of the Spitfire's engine and air frame constantly straining against every turn and maneuver was something really new that I hadn't heard before in a battle scene.
Did early spitfires rattle that much in the cockpit? Because if so that’s great attention to detail
@Campbell no, they actually didn't. I thought that was a little odd to include that sound. My guess is maybe it was a way to convey stress and strain, but no, they don't rattle.
The irony in this movie is that Nolan chose real over realistic. Those two don't always go hand in hand! The Messerschmitt shown in the movie is a spanish variation used post war. So yes, the dog fight is real, but not realistic because Nolan didn't use a second world war... CG Messerschmitt.
I liked both the grease pencil calculations and the sound of their radios when they were communicating with each other. Additionally liked that none of them were frantic or overly emotional. I'm not sure how accurate to life that is, but in my head, an early war british airman would be cool and dispassionate like they were. I'd imagine that as attrition and the war dragged on, they'd be more coarser and less seasoned, but again, thats just in my head.
What boggled me was at the end, he splashes the last bomber and glides along the beach, way past the perimeter and into enemy territory. Why not continually turn in a broad spiral to bleed that speed and energy and splashdown near where everyone is already being rescued. I'm not an aircraft expert so someone else might have the answer. Best I could possibly guess is that without power to the engine, it's just the pilot physically wrestling the control surfaces, like if your car's power steering goes out, but aren't most aircraft of this time purely mechanical anyway without power assistance?
@@mjz01 Why wouldn't the airframe rattle with turbulence? Even airliners rattle with turbulence going straight and constant speed. Given the high speed maneuvers over the layers of air over the sea, wouldn't it be expected there would be a lot of rattling?
I love how in Red Tails a human being hit by 30mm rounds apparently is like being shot with a small calibre pistol.
Yeah I remember laughing at that scene. He would have been a red mist
Or how the P-51's being shot by 30mm look like they are being shot at by 8mm rounds......
Yeah, since those ME-262's were loaded for anti bomber sortie, they would have been using "Mine Shell" ammo for those 30mm cannons.. Meaning the shells would have been filled with Hexogen explosive rounds (RDX)...
Yet when the 262 shoots the B-17 it creates massive holes in them. Weird how selective the cannons were.
Shot at with four 30mm cannon ..... pilot says tis but a scratch!.... how bloody naive does Hollywood think the audience is...
One of the coolest touches in Dunkirk was to have Michael Caine on the radio (7:05) as he also played a Spitfire pilot in “Battle of Britain.”
Thanks for posting this great analysis.
Being a devotee (wife says fanatic) of 'The Battle of Britain, I picked his voice straight away.
@@Parawingdelta2 Haha.. Do you play the BoB theme while you're taking a shower? I do :)
@@dre32pitt I've got it on my 'ring tone' selection on my mobile phone. Using the theme to 'Zulu' at the moment.
Not many people know that, you know.
@@storagedisk You’re only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!
It's amazing how "The Battle of Britian" was made in 1969 and is still one of the best movies at showing aerial combat. Even with all our technology today, sometimes realism requires reality to make it work.
Sometimes being closer to the actual events and having living veterans to act as technical advisors helps, too.
@@rikk319 Agreed.
The CGI kids can never stop themselves from turning it into an arcade game.
The reason is that directors get carried away and add nonsensical drama on top of the actual drama. In a way, they are not trusting their own story that way. If you can't make a realistic WW2 dogfight seem exciting enough on screen, you're bad at your job, period. Or you think your audience is stupid not to get what's going on.
Yes, so unfortunaly they didn't rate the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" from 1970, but "Pearl Harbor" from 2001, which was very bad.
the Dunkirk plane scenes were absolutely mindblowing in IMAX
I will never forget Dunkirk in IMAX til my dying day. Absolutely insane. I mean the air combat was the highlight but the thing I remember most was when they’re hiding in the Dutch trawler, the first bullet rips through the hull and you hear it rattle on the other side
Word.
I'll be honest, I found Dunkirk to be really underwhelming. Complete lack of scale. The gliding kill unrealistic. The town of Dunkirk was also a bomb site which isn't reflected in the film
The last time I saw my close family friend was when I went to see Dunkirk with him in IMAX. We’re both secret world war 2 nerds and I don’t think either of us had ever had a better cinematic experience
@@Gremlin2427
The were so obsessed with shooting at the real locations that they failed to realize that set would have been better.
What's worse to me is the beach scenes.
If you're not gonna use THOUSANDS of extras you HAVE TO use cgi.
It's like instead of the British Expeditionary force they had like a single under strength brigade.
Something I've noticed in these - it appears that the older films have all been rated the most realistic.
Probably because they had to use real airplanes that adhered to the laws of physics rather than the CGI crap where planes are on their side making Star Wars trench runs between buildings
@@SWalker71 Also because in 1969 when they filmed the Battle of Britain there were plenty of WWII vets around in their 40s or so who would call out the bullshit.
Because less CGI
CGI and hack directors have made a lot of shitty war films
Less CGI
Finally an air combat video shows the Battle of Britain. Not only were they flying real aircraft, many of them were piloted by veterans too. In the credits they list a large number of pilots from both sides as advisors which undoubtedly helped with the authenticity. The camera aircraft was a medium bomber, and the biggest challenge was making sure that the aircraft didn’t fly into it, so it was painted in weird bright colours
The Psychedelic Monster
The camera ship they used was a B-25 Mitchell with the camera in the rear gunner's position. One camera operator lost a leg when a helicopter also used in filming got a bit too close.
Adolf Galland was one of the technical advisors on BOB.
Dunkirk was by far the most accurate aerial combat on a movie in YEARS. The lack of cgi was a huge relief
They had some fantastic models for the scenes too although I certainly didn't pick it when I watched the film. Just saw a bit about the making.
Really? I think the opposite. Firstly the Spits were flying much to low making them vulnerable to attack from above with no room to manoeuvre. Secondly, the pilot who ditched in the sea had a crow-bar available to break the canopy in the event of a jam.(Attached to drop door on his left and carried on all Spitfires.) In the film he is banging at the canopy with his fists...ridiculous. Thirdly, the Spitfire with engine failure landing wheels down on sand would have ended in the aircraft 'digging in' and catapulting to certain death. In real life the pilot would have done a 'wheels up' or 'belly landing'. Again, ridiculous.
@@pringlel There's inevitably some dramatic or visual licence taken in these films to enhance the experience. "Will he get the wheel down in time" has been used in a few films. I'm a bit of fanatic about realism and the Spitfires patrolling too low escaped me. I thought the visual of them with the sea below was great. I think dragging out the locked canopy bit sort of enhanced a real problem too. Remember Christopher Plummer in 'The Battle of Britain' trying to get out of his Spitfire while it burned?
@@pringlel Spits didn't have crowbars that early in the war. But you're right in other respects. One other thing that doesn't seem to bother anyone else but bothers the crap out of me is the camera "Spit" they were using really doesn't look like the side of a Spitfire at all, it looks ridiculous, I actually wish they had CGI'd that.
Christopher Nolan has a hatred for CGI, I think.
As I recall Red Tails also depicted at least one main character killed in flight training. The number of WWII aviators killed in training is almost universally ignored in movies. Another important story this movie at least touched on.
I wish they had of done the 95 movie The Tuskegee Airmen instead of Redtails. I felt it was a far better movie.
Also Midway has a guy die on a training flight as well. Overall I did appreciate that film with how much they tried to keep the meat of the story accurate. I really like how it showed long distance AAA shots flying in an arc as opposed to a straight line.
@@tjohn6041 Pretty much at least one student out of every class died in training.
Half of each class died during WW2 as a combination of training and operational losses.
@@tjohn6041 They also had one of the gunners talking to the pilot and telling him how he is the only guy in his class who hasn't crashed.
Also overall accident deaths, around 50% if not more of all deaths in USAAF were accidents not actual enemy.
Totally agree, Battle of Britain is on a different level. It’s like a ballet with planes, no cgi, real planes in the sky
They even used a B-25 as the camera aircraft.
They also used a couple of the combatants as technical advisors.
Plus the excellent music score really adds to those dogfight scenes!
They literally can't make them like that any more. Can't imagine the safety case even getting signed :)
@@ErikLosLobos
As a true nerd: Those German planes were all wrong, those were Spanish Models
😂🤣😂
When I worked at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, I was directly involved with the American Fighter Aces Association and got to hear many stories about aerial combat from the aces themselves. One such story was from Robin Olds at one of their annual reunions regarding him actually shooting down more than four enemy planes during Vietnam, but didn't claim a fifth and sixth plane as they would have sent him home, so he let his squadron mates claim them. I was lucky to meet aces such as Joe Foss, Gabby Gabreski, Chuck Yeager and Bud Anderson along with many other aces.
It’s crazy to see one of my previous commander’s on one of these videos! Lt Col Ziemann is one of the best commander’s I’ve had in my military career. Very knowledgeable, a great pilot and a great leader that takes care of his people! Good to see you again sir!
The Spitfire Mk.Ia doing the glide in the Dunkirk movie is N3200/QV-I which did crash on the beach. It was recovered in 1986, restored to flying condition and did fly for the movie "Dunkirk". It was based at RAF Duxford in 1940 and now flys again from RAF/IWM Duxford.
Not quite.
The three spits used in filming were two mki's and a mkv all owned by commanche fighters
Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I
Registration G-CGUK / R9612, c/n 6S-75531 built in 1940.
Supermarine Spitfire Mk. Ia
Reg. G-AIST / R9632, c/n WASP/20/2 built in 1941.
Supermarine Spitfire Mk. Vb
Registration G-CISV / RR9649 LC, c/n CBAF.2405 built in 1942.
@@adrianspencer2415 Sorry. but like I said, 1 is N3200, a Mk.I, based at Duxford, the other is a Mk.IIa still in service with the RAF (Battle of Britain Memorial Flight-RAF) based at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire a Typhoon base and the Mk.Vb is in private hands and is also currently based at Duxford. LC (R9649) (Avro Anson) real reg is (EP122) for a Mk.Vb spit. Look at the bulge under and on top of the wing and the empty canon ports. One on each wing.
@@adrianspencer2415 Hope you realise that those 'R' registrations are not actual spitfire registrations, there AVRO Anson registrations. Look it up.
@ibl19108 I can assure you n3200 was not used in the filming mate
I'm really surprised the air to air combat scenes in Tora Tora Tora wasn't covered. I loved the detail of the condensation coming off the wingtip's of the P40's. I also loved the scenes out of Dunkirk which showed just how short the machine gun bursts in a WWII dogfight actually was.
Me TOO! Also, should have done both Midway movies and compared. Would have liked to seen the 95 Tuskegee Airmen instead of Redtails.
Me to! It also bugs me that so many people said the air combat on Dunkirk was boring. I guess people are too conditioned to expect massive explosions nonstop
I was thinking about that with Tora tora tora , thank god he ripped the pearl harbour movie apart , I hate that movie , but love tora tora tora
@@keiranallcott1515 I know what you mean. When I watched the trailer for Pearl Harbor I really thought it was going a good movie then I watched it and it was horrible. Even as old as Tora Tora Tora is it beats Pearl Harbor hands down.
@@mwhyte1979 I know that tora tora tora is an old movie , but it’s one of the few movies that I get immersed into. As in its very well written and presented , but also authentic , for example , the launching of the first strike is just so well done, that you really feel like you are there. The opening few mins of the attack on pearl harbour really does look like the real thing.
The guy’s pretty good: doesn’t waste time in long explanation yet exhaustive, always on point, and fairly balanced
You know, he's pretty good, except he, you know, says this one thing, you know, a little too often. You know?
I'll admit it's a little thing to pick on, but 58 times in 20 minutes is too much to tune out.
He's military. Whatd'ya expect?
Except for being an "expert" he sure doesnt really know his history and is wrong on alot of things
@@jonnyblayze5149 like what?
Really says something that Battle of Britain still holds up the best. That movie was the inspiration for the dogfights in Star Wars, btw. Geroge Lucas made a reel himself to show the guys at ILM (which he had just founded) and told them that's the dynamic he wanted. Not only did they deliver for the X-Wings vs TIE Fighter fights, there is even a shot when the TIEs attack the Millennium Falcon which is an exact mirror of a Spitfire vs Heinkel bomber run from Battle of Britain, camera positions and everything.
"Battle of Britain" is my favorite war movie of all time. I almost wish it would have been about a half hour longer. The flight scenes were excellent and both sides (British and German) were portrayed. No CGI - mostly real aircraft used, although some RC models were used. There were no airworthy Stukas in 1969.
Agreed, i think i know the script by heart.
And the music off by heart too….
I know the script off by heart, much to the annoyance of my wife every time we watch it AGAIN!
@@Parawingdelta2 "Thanks awfully old chap."
My dad who was an actual US bomber pilot during the war, flew one of the German planes during production though his face is never shown on screen.
'Battle of Britain' ruined camping for me....i was a kid on my 1st holiday under canvas in 1968(?).
We were staying between Folkestone & Dover, and the aerial filming was happening overhead during our trip.
Each day there were Spitfires, Me109s and He111s (+ the camera planes/helicopters) flying to & from locations.
It took years to realize that not all camping trips came with an awesome sideshow.
Love it🤓
Lol….. 3rd September 1968 08.30 watched the filming from Plumstead SE London, of the ‘night raid’ by He111’s on the docks as they flew over Fords Dagenham plant….
First day in 2nd year at Senior school.
That evening I watched a Spitfire shot down over East London smoke and spinning from the top of a number 53 bus on the way home from school………
Battle of Britain has my vote as well. They did the best they could do given the aircraft they could get. Very accurate overall. In the one scene where you showed the spitfire pilot bailing out, his chute did not open. At times, this also happened. My father's cousin was a spitfire pilot and reported things like this actually happening.
My best friend is German and his one wish was to be a Spirfire pilot!
@@amazer747 I recall the one guy who was talking to Goring in the movie told him that he wanted a squadron of spitfires.
@@ConnorLundeen That character was based on figther ace Adolf Galland who served as one of the many technical advisors on the film. Basically Goring ordered them to use their BF 109s defensively to protect the bombers and Galland was pointing out how BF 109s were best suited for attack whilst the Spitfire was superior in defensive purposes. Ultimately Galland prefered the BF 109 and was probably just giving a cheeky answer. Lengthy fact but I love this film!
@@kkkelp7346 They still could use veterans from both sides as advisors at that time. And that makes the movies so realistic.
@@barbarossarotbart Exactly! That's why I also love A Bridge Too Far so much!
I am a big fan of Battle of Britain. As a civilian pilot, I thought the flying scenes were very realistic. The LOW strafing run of the French airfield by the 109's at the beginning of the movie was terrific. Some of the special effects were not up to the flying standards but this was before computer animation. All-in-all, the movie describes the valor and sacrifice of many young men.
My late godfather was a glider pilot for the Luftwaffe (class of 1925) . He lucked out, because the classes ahead of him all perished during the Battle of Crete in 1941. His glider unit was disbanded after that battle, and he flew reconnaissance planes for the remainder of the war. He told me of how much he enjoyed "Battle of Britain", which he saw with some fellow Luftwaffe veterans. They were all swerving in their theater seats during the dogfights! 😂🤣
My Grandfather sure liked to tell stories about shooting down Luftwaffe planes.
@@ered203 bllsht
@@sg-yq8pm wdym
I recall a comment by someone who said he was a kid in the theater in England when the BoB movie was released. According to him, all the veterans got to their feet and cheered wildly when a German pilot got splattered.
The Battle of Crete is unfortunately one of those stories that rarely gets told even though it had a significant impact on both sides. The island itself was not very strategic but it's the only island in history to be captured solely by air units. The Luftwaffe was chewed up in the battle and never attempted another major parachute and glider landing afterwards, and the Royal Navy's Eastern Mediterranean fleet dwindled to just a handful of ships due to the high losses they took during the battle. The irony is most of the errors the Germans made in the battle the allies would make themselves at D-Day in France in 1944. Historians feel that the Germans attacking Crete instead of Malta ultimately helped doom the North African campaign.
Battle Of Britain remains one of the best WW2 movies ever made
Totally agree !
Yeah, it’s for the air combat what Das Boot is for submarine warfare
Stop that Polish chatter and steer two three zero
@@Gremlin2427 secretly, thats a big reason I love that movie..
Bandits. 2 o clock
I loved when I heard Michael Caine's voice as Fortis Leader. He also has the best line in "The Battle of Britain" as Squadron Leader Canfield
"How much longer ops? The engine is overheating and so am I. We either stand down now or blow up, which do you want?"
I recall reading that the Spitfire landing on the beach in "Dunkirk" was based on an actual event:
"Commanding a squadron during the Dunkirk evacuation in May 1940, Geoffrey D. Stephenson was shot down, crash-landed his Spitfire on the beach and was taken prisoner. Stephenson was killed in an air crash on 8 November 1954 while on a tour of the United States."
And in fact his Spitfire was restored to flying condition and is now at IWM Duxford--back in the very same hangar it started the morning he was shot down!
In addition to Stephenson, Kenny Hart even torched his Spitfire with his flare pistol just like in the movie. But he was able to escape back on a boat!
The Ju87 had an autopilot for dive bombing attacks. The designer assumed the pilot would blackout and the autopilot engaged with bomb release to pull the plane up 2000ft and assume level flight. That also means the Ju87 was a sitting duck immediately after a dive bombing attack with an unconscious pilot and autopilot engaged.
TBH when the fighters were modern metal monoplanes, the Ju-87 was a sitting duck immediately before the attack, on the way out and on the way home too.
@@jeremypnet Half the roads in the area I live in look like a Stuka raid just took place yesterday afternoon!
@@jeremypnet There was quite a number of StuKa- pilots with some confirmed kills both by their rear gunners and from engaging into a dogfight. The Ju 87 had the same armourment as the Bf 109 E after all.
14:00 - Talking about the Zero exploding in a ball of flame, it's worth noting that that aircraft wasn't equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks, so they had a *much* higher chance of exploding in a catastrophic kill.
Had no armour either...
@@louisavondart9178 Part of the reason they had an ungodly range--an unarmored plane can fly farther. As long as they had more maneuverability than U.S. planes, the armor wasn't as important. Once Hellcats, P-38s, and Corsairs showed up, though, it was over.
Only the first versions.
By the way Spitfire and Messerschmitt at the beginning of the Battle of britain hadnt self sealing tanks too.
@@rikk319 The lack of armor was a critical vulnerability despite the Zero's greater maneuverability at low (dogfight) speeds as they could not absorb battle damage. But US pilots unfamiliar with them had to learn the hard way not to get baited into a turning fight at all costs.
@@rikk319 I'd say it was also a liability against the insane anti-aircraft batteries of the US fleet; their dive and torpedo planes weren't armored either. Even early in the war AA had a lot to do with shredding the elite core of Japanese naval aviation.
100 percent agree. What's annoying is there seems to be an inverse ratio between realism and commercial success when it comes to these kinds of movies. Red Tails was especially disappointing because it was such an important story to tell, and yet the aerial combat scenes were so horribly bad.
Hi Matt. My Dad was on the Enterprise from '43 on. Towards the end of the war off Okinawa they were attacked by a group of Kamikaze. The plane that hit the Enterprise flew down from the clouds as other planes attacked more in the style you mention. The plane that hit the Enterprise flew almost straight down and into the open or lowered forward elevator. The force of the blast and the severing of the steam line pushed to elevator high into the sky. Dad did not often talk about the war. But, a couple things he mentioned resonate in your video. The flak they shot was as you mention, a predetermined elevation and direction. Dad called it a barrage curtain or flak wall. Thank you for the video.
I also like how in Red Tails the P51C's are taking direct hits from the 30mm cannons of the Me262s and just shrugging them off. A 20mm minengeshoß shell would leave a 1.5 m hole in a B17s wing, a single 30mm mine shell hit would probably completely obliterate a fighter. That's like 72 grams of high explosive in each shell.
Yeah the ME-262 that was after bombers would have had RDX explosive rounds loaded for its quad 30mm cannons..
P-51D*
The irony of this correction though is that the Tuskegee actually ran razorbacked (no bubble canopy) P-51s, like the 51B and C, until late 1944, pretty late in the war. For the majority of the time the 332FG were using P-51s, it was the older B/C models, not the D models. They didn't get the latest and greatest, but they made it work
@@MajCyric A Me262 would have trouble hitting a P-51. The Me262 was a truely lousy gun platform. It was too fast and had no air brakes. The later ones were fitted with automatic gun triggers that fired when the sky was obscured by an object - it was the only way they could hit an aircraft moving at less than half their speed.
Post war there were a number of cases of jet fighters trying to light aircraft and failing completely - thousands of rounds fired and no hits.
I read memoirs of a Polish WWII fighter pilot, he mentioned German 20mm cannons were leaving 40cm holes in their planes. Of course, the Me 262s had 30mm cannons.
Conversely, I like how in Pearl Harbor and Eternal Zero they show Zeros shrugging off hits that theoretically should have shredded them. The P-51 taking more damage than the Zero in that collision made me laugh in disbelief.
Great review. The thing that makes The Battle of Britain scenes accurate, as well as the use of many real planes, is that many WWII flyers and witnesses were still alive, to advise.
That climax of Battle of Britain without the sound and just William Walton’s battle in the air. What a choice!
To my mind I'm probably being biased but Battle of Britian for me is one of my all time greats. Everything about the film was a joy to watch. Having partially trained in the RAF but didn't finish training because well I hit some emotional and mental challenges, I felt so honoured to be training in the same outfit that these few did for us. The music, the dogfights, the dialogue. Everything about it was just absolutely fantastic. Jolly good show old chap. ❤
I loved Memphis Belle when I first watched it. I was maybe 10 or 11 back then and it just propelled my interests about warplanes in general sky high indeed. That scene where the fighter hits and cuts the bomber in half was absolutely terrifying to see on my first watch. I was shaking and I still remember it to this day; the sheer helplessness it creates is insane.
Great film. Looking forward to Masters Of The Air
There is another Memphis Belle film, done during the war with the actual plane, and crew in parts, with footage filmed from bombers in action-worth finding and seeing-It's about their 25th and final mission before coming home.
@@crankyyankee7290 I have always had a hankering to see the original story put to film, that was based on the British Lancaster crew that was the first allied bomber to make the cut-off. Never made because the film needed US money to make and no one thought US audiences would go to see a foreign nation as the 'heroes'. Reasonable point if that's who's paying for it, but I've always wanted to know what the British version would look and sound like. 😁
I can never watch that scene again. The very same thing happened in real life at an airshow here in Dallas last year. Killing both crews. And recorded from numerous different angles by onlookers. Never should have happened.
@@riculfriculfson7243 I would find that most interesting(if Hollyweird could be kept away from it )
Oh damn, had no idea the bombadier was the one controlling the plane whilst looking through the scope. I always thought they were looking for targets along a path the pilot was given then timing the drops. These break downs are always interesting.
Same. Or rather more specifically, I thought perhaps the bombadier would look through the scope to see when the target is at the appropriate distance, and that he had a bit of control, like yaw or something, on the release of the bombs, so they could slightly angle whichever way to adjust.
But thinking on it in greater detail, it makes sense of all the talks of going on bombing runs and why they had so many turrets. They are quite literally locked into a horizontal plane (the geometry kind) and can shimmy and turn, but are otherwise locked on a forward non-evading path. That makes bombers siege engines more than planes, but we only envision them as planes like fighters, dodging and juking and whatnot which led to our mistaken assumption.
If you have played cod 2 the big red one, you do that during the bombing mission
that's why you hear them call "my ship" or "my plane" and then follow up with the call when they're done. the 1949 show "12 o'clock high" is a pretty good series to watch.
Yes, but normally, only the lead plane had a Norden bomb sight that did this. The other bombadiers just dropped when the lead plane dropped, so there would be a ten mile long bomb stream. The " pin point accuracy " was total fiction and most USAF bombs landed in empty fields.
That's why the Norden bombsight was the biggest secret of the war, up until the atomic bombs.
So incredibly proud to be part of the aviation history. 11:02 Our F16's got the honor of having a red strip on the tail fin when they where in Iraq in '04. In fact proof is on the cover of the box art for 'Falcon 4.0 Allied Force' That's actually a Montana Air National Guard plane. The small red stripe is mostly covered by the 'F' on the side but you can see it if you look close. Also the full image of an aircraft on the side of the box, you can see the red stripe if you look close.
Incredibly proud to be part of the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing's history, and us Montana boys did them proud! We set records for Combat Readiness, Sorties Flown, and many others.
Honors - Transition of Iraq 2003-2004, Iraqi Governance 2004-2005
Decorations - Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor - 30 Apr 04, 1 May 04
I love these types of videos. Will watch them every time. Thank you Lt. Col. Matt Ziemann for your service to this country first, and for participating in this video that hypes up people like me who love both US History and Military History in general. Thank Insider.
I have served under Lt Col Ziemann's command in the past. He is the real deal and an amazing leader. His history knowledge is absolutely ridiculous. I am convinced Lt Col Ziemann is a time traveler who witnessed many events in person lol.
I love these breakdowns. You always find very interesting experts.
In Battle of Britain the Me109's and He111's were ex-Spanish airforce aircraft. They had all been re-engined with late model Merlin's in the mid-1950's. Meanwhile, most of the Spitfires used in the film were later models and were Griffon engined, not Merlins. The film's sound engineers had to go through the film and correct almost every aircraft sound as it was wrong.
No, the spanish aircraft were totally dicferent, no just re-engined
@@armoredspain7053 Correct the "Me109s" we see in the film are actually Spanish built HA-1112-M1L "Buchon" aircraft which was a licence built copy of the Me109G-2 with somewhat ironically a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.
@@martinhardy5462 thats fake too. The license built unit was just one and was just a prototype. The aircraft of the film have nothing to do with the 109s
@@armoredspain7053 You are just on about the 109s the rest of the aircraft used in the film were authentic real aircraft from the battle, except for the Stukas, which were remote controlled models.
@@armoredspain7053 sorry that’s actually more than what Martin Hardy said. They were Spanish licensed built 109’s with Merlin engines. Hence why they look exactly like 109, except for the engine cowling.
Battle of Britain was one of the first films I ever saw at the cinema, taken to see it as a special treat by my dad. I loved it then and I love it now. Brilliant film
I love that fuel check scene in Dunkirk. The Spitfire does not have a fuel gauge. There is a display with a button underneath. This measures the pressure in the fuel tank and draws a conclusion as to how full the tank is. To check this, the pilot must take his hand off the control stick and hold this button down for at least one second (as shown in the movie). Most of the time, this indicator shows "full". When it no longer does, you know you have to turn back to England. Then you are already below 30%. For 30-100%, the indicator simply shows "full".
haha great engineering. your options are "full" or "almost dead". the gauge is a really good way to translate visually to the audience the fuel level without doing all that exposition though so I reckon, film wise, we can give them a pass.
In Dunkirk I thought it was unrealistic how little evasive action they took, just flying straight, but probably because they were real and didn't want to stress the old planes.
That was actually exactly the reason. They were using real 70+ year old aircraft and didn't want to put them in any risky situations
The lead Spitfire also clearly shows the wing blisters required to house the Hispano 20mm cannons which period correct Spitfire Mk 1's didn't have. The two on the outside were definitely Mk1's.
And the outer shots from the wing/fuselage join forward, you can see the cowling isn’t a spitfire shaped, it’s too circular housing a radial or something larger or rounded that the Merlin engined cowling. That was the only thing that really bugged me the whole time. I know that aircraft wasn’t a spitfire for those shots.
@@parvizdeamer all the shots from inside or on the aircraft were done with YAK-42's modified to take those massive cameras, they didn't want to modify an actual spitfire.
@@Erpyrikk that explains it, thanks
I love the beginning of “The Battle of Britain”. There is a shot of ME-109’s flying across a field and the pilot shows his skill by passing over a wooden fence and clearing it by a handful of feet. Such a Great War movie. The WWII generation would not put up with the corny heroics of modern movies.
Yes, the 109 actually had to climb to vault the fence! Some fine flying in that film.
@@johncartwright8154 Real planes with real pilots, co CGI.
Dunkirk and Devotion were pretty faithful to the old WWII/Korean War movies
Bf-109*
@@lurtzy_ Both names were used at the time in period documents, even by the Germans.
Absolutely loved this. The Battle of Britain is a great film. No CGI, makes it even better. The RAF saved our bacon back then.
For what reason? Now you have a blackshirt government.
Battle of Britain holds up so well because of realistic acting plot and air combat . The dog fight scenes and other shots were used in many other films and even t.v. shows years later .
Biggest missed opportunity in Midway not showing more Wildcat scenes. Would have been cool seeing a sideplot dedicated to John Thach and his squadron slowly developing a means to combat the Zero in the form of the Thach Weave
The 1976 Midway movie was a lot better than the 2019 version.
The "Thach Weave."
@@goldleader6074 not exactly. the 1976 movie did not cover some things that were in the 2019 movie.
@@goldleader6074 noted I’ll check it out
@@MrChickennugget360 I'm going to say that there has not been a good Midway movie made yet. There was so much potential to do it right in the 2019 version and they squandered it. Like the mechanic said in 'The Battle of Britian', "It's enough to make you weep."
Would love to see the original Midway, The Flying Leathernecks, and Tora Tora Tora. Also, I felt the Tuskegee Airmen movie was better than Redtails. Def should be a part 2.
Agreed, all the older ones I find a lot better. Too much CGI and cheap spectacle in the new ones. You can’t fly a P-40 15ft off the ground down a street between two building sideways.
@@parvizdeamer And yet the new Midway is pretty much a Mona Lisa next to the 1976 Midway's crayon drawing... which it stole from other people...
The Taylor /Welch dogfight in the original "ToraTora Tora" is the most realsitic and true to history in aerial tactics I've ever seen. It should have been included
54 years on, and the Battle of Britain still holds up as a fking awesome movie.
Can we please get more of this dude! love the info
There’s frost on the tail gunner window in Memphis Belle. That was a nice touch.
Thanks for the great explanations !
Very good information, thank you. Well done.
That final glide by the Spitfire in 'Dunkirk' is priceless. He get's down to about 200 feet and still has another 10 minutes of gliding time. 😂
There was much that was good about the flying scenes in Dunkirk but ditching a Spitfire which then just floats while the pilot tries to get out? The Spit was so front end heavy that as soon as, or even before, it came to a stop the nose would go down and take its pilot down with it. RIP Flt Lt ARH Palmer 549 Sqn RAF. Killed 08/11/1944 trying to ditch his Spitfire in the sea north of Darwin Australia.
Though there wasn't much dogfighting, I really liked 633 Squadron. The Mosquito has always been one of my favorite aircraft.
The wooden wonder was arguably one of the most beautiful twin engined planes of WWII.
@@johnmeneses7039agreed...beautiful planes...633 is a good film....😊
Definitely agree with you on " The Battle of Britain " saw it when it first came out as a kid in '69. Still consider it the best combat air sequences to date on WWII.
Brilliantly explained, thank you very much!
Here was me wishing the channels that make these videos would include some of the scenes from the 60s movie Battle of Britain and in this one they have 😃.
Love this movie, It has amazing flying, no cgi and the scene where Robert Shaw is teaching a young pilot is spot on.
Robert Shaw is portraying Sailor Malan an RAF ace from South Africa who wrote down his rules for combat flying and they are still valid now.
After the war Sailor Malan went back to S Africa and spent the rest of his life fighting apartheid until his untimely death from Parkinson’s 😔.
I like Susannah York in this too, although like most of the younger cast her hairstyle is 100% 60s. The scene where she shouts ‘don’t you yell at me mister Warwick’ as she has just seen the bodies of young WAAFs standing out.
The use of a real pilot with burns in the film was also for the time a brave move.
Amazing how many young actors that movie introduced - Ian McShane, Michael Caine - probably the best ensemble of British male actors ever. Before they were famous :)
Yeah, hopefully somebody includes that one real soon.
@@Milkmans_Son lol I typed my comment up a little too quickly 😃. I’ve now amended my comment
@@lyntoncollins2758 Michael Caine was already a star as he had made the Ipcress File and Zulu before this.
Ian McShane was not far away from his rise to stardom though.
In "Red Tails" bullets are just ringing when hitting the P-51s, but Me-262s were armed with 30,, cannons, not machine guns, so the rounds would blow up upon hitting the target, and a single hit would probably be enough to down a fighter.
11:01 The fact that in red tails, they added a Stuka siren to the Me 262s, makes me want to laugh, and cry at the same time.
This guy really knows his stuff. Not just the technical aspects of flight and the different airplanes but also the history of air combat.
Wouldnt P51s flying escort as depicted in Red Tails be flying in formation above the bombers i.e. not within the bomber formation itself?
Yep, the escort fighters didn't fly amongst the bomber formations and I've also read that the escorts didn't follow enemy fighters too closely who were attacking the bomber formation because the defensive gunners were likely to shoot at the escorts because it was difficult to identify planes coming at you headon.
I remember reading somewhere about some VMF-214 veterans (Black Sheep Squadron) commenting on the realism of the TV show Baa Baa Black Sheep. One veteran commented, "There wasn't an oxygen mask or a gunsight in that TV squadron." and "They had these marvelous conversations on the radio; ours hardly worked!" But it's Hollywood. They gotta give actors lines to say during action sequences. Otherwise, they're there just to look pretty.
Nice video and very well done. One of my major pet peeves regarding movies about WWII is the ridiculously low rate of fire of aircraft machine guns. Some of them get it right, but most don't.
As a pilot, I approve.
Also, the fact Battle of Britain was referenced makes me so happy. One of the best combat aviation movies ever made.
Your "expert" did get one thing wrong, his comment about the hand mic in the TBD-1. The version a, used and flown during midway, did not have the accommodation yet for throat mic inputs. So that could very well be realistic to the plane. Keeping in mind this is mid 42, so a lot of the planes were still early 38-40 models.
So what about ”Tora! Tora! Tora!”? That movie is never included in these kind of clips.
Better than all the subsequent Pearl Harbor movies.
Very clearly explained. Thanks 🙏
Thanks for an awesome review
This guy tells it like it is and doesn’t hold back. Love it.
really... how would a P-51 catch a me-62? let alone react before the me_62 came back.
thats like saying a p-51 would be able to see and fight a modern jet fighter
Something a lot of movies also fail to show in WW2 movies is the German use of the BnZ tactic (Boom & Zoom) on bombers (and fighters).. I'm guessing that it would be hard(er) to film.. But they would dive down onto a target(s) shooting and passing down and under them pulling back up using the dive's energy and high speed to regain height.. To then circle back around again on another BnZ attack on another target (the BF109 was the most famous for this tactic since it was able to retain )...
But in the movie Red Tails, the ME262's tactics at that time would have had them dropping down and through the escorts and behind and down under the bomber formation all in the blink of an eye.. Then while on the climb back up rip a wing off a bomber with their quad 30mm cannons at around 500m as they climbed back up and out of range.. A P-51 had zero chance of catching a ME 262 that is BnZ'ing (at about Mach 0.75 or 575mph).. ME 262 pilots had on avg about 2 to 3 seconds on target to take their shot..
Later in the war (Late 1944/Early 1945) the ME 262 tactic was changed when they started to used the R4M rockets, which they would attack from the side on, launching their rockets while still out of the bomber's .50 Cal range..
The battle of britain kind of portrayed the me109 coming from above, the scene mainly is when the RAF pilot comments about yellowed nosed bastards coming down now.
This... ! Hollywood would never show the Germans actually doing it right though. The only time a P51 could shoot down a 262 was when it was coming in to land.
Great facts, would like to see Military Expert ratings for Dogfights in WW1 films. "Wings" being one of the classics that comes to mind.
Thank you Matt Ziemann ! Finally, an accurate assessment of hollywood movies depicting WWII fighters. Best video assessment on the web !
My favorite part of Dunkirk was Michael Caine reprising his character from Battle of Britain 48 years later
I'll bet he got a kick out of that as well.
One would think that more modern films would be more realistic, but the over-reliance on CGI has really taken cinematography backwards.
😅 I hear people make that comment way too often. There is no way to make a Film with 80 year old Museum pieces.
Really cool review! I love combat aviation. And yeah: Tuskegee Squadron, is definately an important piece of history to tell. I saw it in theatres opening day.
When i was a kid, i watched battle of britain every sunday when my parents were out, for like half year on VHS. 🤪 I still love that movie!
The Battle of Britain is the gold standard by which all movies with dogfight scenes should be measured! There were some rather cheezy special effects in it that would be helped by modern CGI, but I'll take those over the fake-looking all-CGI scenes we see today.
The germans did capture a few spits .... one being called the messerspit think it was a later mk Vb with a DB605a engine amd german instruments
Yep, and it performed better than with the Merlin engine. It was destroyed in an air raid in 1945.
This video is actually genuinely underated ❤😂🎉
I know its not much of a dogfight but the scene in Patlabor 2 is one of the best depiction of an aerial attack I have ever seen in a film. The atmosphere, the tension, the calling and jargon. All perfect.
The 'Battle of Britain' and 'The Dambusters' (not featured), as full length historical dramas, stand head and shoulders above all the other airplane movies for their authenticity and attention to detail.
Thanks for mentioning The Dam Busters, I've been planning to watch it about 40 years, suddenly realized I can do it now.
The dambusters is a great film. The Lancaster is such a beautiful bomber, i love seeing it fly over by me at times, especially when it has a spitfire one side and a hurricane on the other side
Ironically, it is the crappiness of The Dambuster's f/x level that proves that "authenticity" and "attention to detail" does NOT make up lower production values across the board.
I mean, don't get me wrong. It ain't a bad story, by a long shot. It just needed the same budget as Battle of Britain (for example), a more nuanced portrayal of the designer of the bomb (so, basically, freer and better writing), and clearance from the home office to show military secrets.
That last thing actually absolutely KILLED the authenticity aspect!...because everytime you see beautiful authentic proving ground shots of a Mosquito dropping one of the dambuster test bombs and then seeing that the bomb itself has been inked out by cruddy animation (I presume to disguise the backward rotation of the device which was still, I guess, a military secret in that production year) you have to wince.
I loved every produced shot of the three Lancaster bombers they brought out of storage flying low over the water. I loved every archival shot of Mosquitoes making bomb runs. But, every animated water explosion and every blacked out dambuster bomb was a heartbreaker.
@@quewalabear8575 Good thoughtful comments about the authenticity of animated scenes. I would still prefer them to the fake CGI graphics used in Pearl Harbour even though the modern CGI provides genuine realism. I rate the Dambusters as the number one movie of its type despite the shortcomings you identified. All aviation movies have the same issues. Even as a teenager, I could spot the fake Spitfires in the Battle of Britain movie simply by counting the number of blades on the propeller or noticing that it had cannons in the wings. Despite these poor details, the movie itself is very authentic and has great action shots. I rate it my number two, concluding that you don't need great CGI to make a picture of quality. Likewise, if you compare the movies, 'Twelve O'clock High' and Memphis Belle' it is the older picture that is more authentic even though it lacks the CGI and modern editing tricks used in the Memphis Belle movie. Animated water explosions are a bit underwhelming, but they still carried part of the story.
@@markbowman2890 "I rate the Dambusters as the number one movie of its type..."
No way! 😄 So, what type of movie is "it's type"?
I mean, unless its type is 'movies about dambusting' there is no type of movie where The Dambusters is even in the top ten.
It's a fun and intersting watch but, as I mentioned, the purile animation is just one area where it fell short.
My father John Pat, RAF 1938 to 45, would agree with much of what the commentator is saying but he would remind all that flight training back then was a rather shoddy affaire ! Most replacement pilots during the BoB had very little flying hours with maybe 4 hours in fighters. So many died on there first op
Glad you talked about the other battle that the Tuskegee Airmen were fighting. Kudos!
loved this episode. awesome guy
The reason why they were so low in the Dunkirk part is because the Spitfire was less efficient than the Bf109 at higher altitudes. At least, that is what I think Nolan tried to do when making the movie.
Actually, Tom Hardy (main pilot we watch) had asked flight lead "Why we don't fly higher" and flight lead's response was that climbing would consume too much fuel, and wanted to maximize their time over Dunkirk. At these short ranges that the Spitfire can fly, this is actually pretty valid.
While yes, flying higher can get you further on less fuel, you have to consider how slow across the ground you will be if you took the time to climb to high altitude, and how much more fuel you'll burn to even get there. There is a sweet spot, for maximizing fuel economy. Closer than a certain distance, and it's not fuel efficient to climb...and the distance between England and Dunkirk was extremely close, too close.
This fuel economy thing is also partly why regional flights for shorter distances don't fly up to 38,000ft like some longer flights. It's just not worth flying that high, just to land again as soon as you got to altitude.
@@Red-Magic I thought that spitfire was most efficient at 10K feet? wouldn't it be worth the fuel? No pilot would stay at 1000' in that energy state just to save fuel. It's seems like suicide.
..nah... they just had zero combat experience. The Germans adored their " Vic " formations as only the lead could look around. The other two were too busy trying to not crash into anyone. The Mk1 Spitfire was inferior to the BF 109 at any altitude, except in it's turn radius.
Another reason for the SBD Dauntless would release the bomb higher is that the bomb accelerates during the fall, for an armour piercing bomb used against a ship the higher it is released, the greater chance of penetration (admittedly the Japanese carrier deck wasn't armoured in this case, but the technique would also be used against battleships). There would be a tradeoff between releasing high (from which the bomb is more effective but a greater chance of missing the target) and releasing low where there's a chance of not pulling out in time and the bomb may be less effective.
Half truth US Carriers hadnt an armored deck eather. It was a metall Deck and the Japanese had a wood deck.
In both Red Tails and Memphis Belle, the allied fighters were at the same altitude as the bombers. I believe they were actually five to ten thousand feet higher, so they would have an energy advantage over the Germans.
I got to shake the hand of a Tuskegee airman at an airshow a couple years ago. He was 100 years old I believe. Nice guy. I thought they were given B or C versions of the Mustang but he confirmed he had a D model.
Another Mustang driver I met half a century ago told me about how he chased down a Me-262 one day. The '262 would be low and slow when it was going to land, and he knew this, so he kept following at full throttle and low altitude as the jet slowed. Cutting back on the throttle to get more time on target, suddenly flak came up from the ground and the jet accelerated away and the Mustang went back to full throttle. After repeating this two more times the guy realized that he was being suckered over AAA, so he broke off.
"I got to shake the hand of a Tuskegee airman at an airshow a couple years ago. He was 100 years old I believe. Nice guy. I thought they were given B or C versions of the Mustang but he confirmed he had a D model."
Thank you for that story. 🙂
The climactic day of the Battle of Britain - 15th of September in Battle of Britain is amazing. They drop most of the sound and dialogue out and let the William Walton score swell up. It’s beautiful but also horrifying. Showing the human cost on both sides.
In BoB, radio controlled models were used (for explosions and crashes) built by Mick Charles who had a model shop in New Malden and then Ewell in Surrey, England. He had photos on the wall from the shoots and one or two surviving models. Modern CGI movies always seem to have to have the fighters moving too quickly, ie with an exaggerated speed differential and with ridiculous aerobatic ability!
My biggest issue with the Spitfires in Dunkirk was the ditching scene. The Supermarine Spitfire was NOTORIUS for being unsurvivable in a water landing. To the point when it was first offered to the Royal navy for carrier use they turned it down, even though they desparately needed a better carrier fighter at the time (they did eventually take it, but only because they couldn't get anything more suitable).
I'm so happy Lt. Col..... Matt Ziemann's choice of his favorite film depiction of dogfight is also mine.
watching that dogfight in Dunkirk in a movie theater with the direction and the sound design was the most worth I got out of buying a movie ticket! Such goosebumps throughout the scene.
Christopher Nolan did that movie right. I was fortunate to see it in 70mm IMAX film, how he intended this movie to be seen!
There was a story of a Spitfire pilot in the Battle Of Britain who shot down a German plane while his was on fire.
Insane stuff.
If you're talking about Victoria Cross recipient James Nicolson, yeah, not only on fire, but was in the process of bailing out! Saw an Me-109 in front of him, and climbed back in to shoot it down!!!! Crazy!
I do believe he was flying a Hurricane
Love battle of Brittan. Once of the most brutal parts is when Andy finds his wife and two children at the church hall after a bombing raid. He leaves to help rescue a trapped family, and he returns to find the hall has been hit by a bomb while he was gone killing them all.
Yes. And it was so understated. He just had to bear it and carry on.
My issue with "Red Tails" has mainly to do with the weapons on the aircraft.
While the Mustang's 6 .50 cal. machine guns were pretty devastating, their impact seems to be slightly overstated.
But the 4 30mm cannons on the Me 262's were meant to down much larger bombers and would have blown large holes in a enemy fighter at the very least with each hit.
The oil on the windscreen (16:30) was probably based on the experience of Sgt Ray T Holmes, who was flying a Hurricane as part of 504 Squadron when he encountered a Dornier that had apparently been fitted with an experimental rear-facing flame-thrower. The oil failed to ignite, but his vision was obscured and he nearly ran into the Dornier. Once the screen cleared, he found himself close to a lone Dornier heading for Buckingham Palace. He fired on the Dornier, but was unable to bring it down or force it to alter course before his ammunition was exhausted. (It was subsequently learnt that the Dornier had been abandoned and was flying on autopilot.) Determined to defend the Palace, he rammed the Dornier, shearing the tail off it and causing it to break up. His Hurricane was also damaged and uncontrollable, but he was able to bail out before the Hurricane punched into the ground at the intersection of Buckingham Palace Road and Ebury Bridge, where it was quickly buried to restore traffic flow and remained until its excavation in May 2004.
If that P-51 took a single 30mm hit from that 262, (let alone several), it would have been reduced to scrap! There are videos of tests the British did with those cannons against various RAF planes, that are amazing.
exactly, and I was waiting for the comment about the red tails maneuver but it never came lol.
I thought the exact same thing. One hit from the 30mm would have been devastating, let alone a few. Yet, a few hits from the .50 cal destroyed the Me-262.
maybe the video was about the realistic, that scene was entirely into the outrageously ridiculous category. LOL.
That was really interesting. The low level scene crossing the Channel in Dunkirk puzzled me at the time. It occurred to me that it might be to conserve fuel and give them more time over Dunkirk? However I am no pilot. Totally agree about The Battle of Britain. Some of the scenes show their age but many of them are phenomenal. I guess using real planes and real pilots, many of whom fought in the war, has that effect.
Not shown in this video, but the main pilot (Tom Hardy) actually at one point asked flight lead why they don't fly higher. Flight lead's response was "to conserve fuel"
... Hardly anyone in the RAF had combat experience outside of WW1. The Germans taught them everything they knew..the hard way.
You use more fuel at low altitude actually.
@@Rocketsong That's correct. However I would guess that taking off from southern England and burning fuel climbing to altitude for the short distance crossing the English Channel would negate that.
@@Rocketsong Exactly
The bit where the spitfire misses in dunkirk was fairly accurate. The RAF at the start of the war didn't believe are marksmanship was that important had hadn't really trained it. In the Battle of Britain the Czech and Pole pilots had a better kill ratio due to their training and combat experience. A lot of pilots interviewed after the war said they pretty much had to throw their training out the window and learn on the job.
Good video! I imagine what the presenter is talking about is the Norden bombsight at 12:55...it would be connected to the flight controls & the bombardier would control the lead ship until he dropped...then he would say "bombs away" & return control to the pilot....