It was my personal privilege and honor to know well the late Group Captain, David Green, RAF, who is one of the Hurricane pilot's interviewed in this documentary. He founded the "Spitfire Society" and, like many knowledgeable and experienced RAF fighter pilots of WW-II, he gives the Hurricane its just due.He was a fine gentleman and officer. He is missed. Happy landings, Group Captain.
They did what they could with what they had and to me, they are all heroes that is their story. Many seem to forget we enjoy our freedom because of all they did!!!!
Good interviews and a bit of lighthearted 'bluster' by these old Hurricane pilots regarding their roles in the BOB. Their lot is akin to that of B24 aircrews who were always overshadowed by the more glamorous and publicized B17. Hats off to them.
Yes this is a repeated quite often other examples are the Vickers Wellington, or any of the earlier twin engined RAF bombers of the early war. The Halifax and Stirlings, and Beaufighter just to mention WWII RAF types.
The Hurricane actually began life as a biplane, based on an earlier aircraft Hawker had built. The Hurricane was the first monoplane fighter to enter service with the RAF. ... The Hurricane actually began life as a biplane, based on an earlier aircraft Hawker had built.
according to my reading of the history, this documentary is far more accurate than those others which glorify the all too fragile Spitfire over the adaptable and muscular Hurricane. thank you for this correct version of the real history!
At 38::22 the narrator states that Avro Lancasterx carried out a raid on Germany. The Lanc first flew in January 1941 and entered service in 1942. The air raft shown was a Wellington from the film "Target For Tonight".
The mention of the big raid in Bremen by Lancaster's would be in June 1942 when 1067 bombers attacked Bremen and just 96 of them were Lancaster's then to say Coventry was revenge for Bremen, the heavy bombing of Coventry was late 1940 and early 1941, Coventry was only bombed just once after Bremen in August 1942 and just 6 people were killed.
Certainly some glaring errors but on balance a good narrative on what was a long lived and respected fighter. One reason the Spit got more credit was 109 pilots didn't want to admit being got by the slower (but more nimble) Hurricanes. As for the pilots interviewed, modest heroes, THANK YOU.
At 10:25 it says the Hindenburg burned after her maiden flight from Germany: WRONG. She had already made 10 trips to the USA and 7 to Brazil. It was in her SECOND year of operation, in the first flight of that "season" that she burned.
I've already concluded the historian who did the research for this doc, was a complete idiot. Even a lazy historian can Google simple facts that they completely blew.
@@EdMcF1 Oh their credibility went up in smoke way before they got to the part about the Hindenburg. Whoever did the historical research for this documentary was either really lazy, or incredibly stupid. Or both.
The people who make this film apparently think that when they are talking about a specific plane, they can just insert footage of any airplane they happen to find at hand, who cares if it hadn't even gone into production at that time.
@@stewartw.9151 The Typhoon, Lancaster and Barracuda were all well after the Battle of Britain and so was the Lancaster raid on Bremen, in fact that raid had just 96 Lancaster's out of 1067 bombers, at least Wellingtons were in that raid, nearly 500 of them.
Quite a few mistakes. Says they signed the Treaty of Versailles in the railway carriage at Compiegne. Not right that was the Armistice and the Treaty was ratified in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles
Seems like the front line planes that lasted through WW2 all were capable. The Stuka is constantly referred to as obsolete, but then again, if you have an airplane that can lay a bomb consistently within 20 feet of center of a stubborn or valuable target, that's hard to beat and likely no other tool in your shed can do that job quickly. There were many UK pilots that preferred the forgiveness and predictability of the Hurricane.
the hurricane was the older sister who did all the work but had the drop-dead bomb-shell younger sister who every-body loved,got the best dates and married very well indeed...
We're not haters- we're victims of a clickbait poor excuse for a "documentary" and we'll never get back the time that was wasted. If YOU think it's well done, fine. But it isn't if accuracy means anything to you.
@@Buckoux Oh dear, I think you missed my point? That it is about the Hurricane is in the title of the video and had you clicked my link you would have seen my point. Regards Rudolf
@Stimpy&Ren clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The Hurricane had a top speed of 340 MPH which was around 15-20 mph slower than the BF109, which was a more advanced design being slightly newer and more comparible to the Spitfire, but still far from slow. Clumsy it was not as it was always remarked as being a very stable platform for its armament and could out turn a 109, and it's fuel tank was behind the engine, forward of the bulkhead, which was armour plated and in the wing mounts. It was no more susceptible to fire than any other contemporary fighter and even withstood bullet damage better than most due to its canvas and dope frame coverings not taking major structural damage while being quick and easy to repair. Much more so than an all metal construction which took much longer and more skilled labour to repair. Perhaps you should do some research before criticizing a legendary aircraft.
@Stimpy&Ren ok, so you have contradicted yourself as you said the pilot sat above the fuel tank not that it was behind the bulkhead and that incendiary rounds would set it alight, not a few well aimed ones, which for the record is the same in any fighter as all prop aircraft have this concern and few if any fighters used incendiary rounds as they were too expensive and ineffective against metal construction planes that made up the majority of second world war designs. The Hurricanes fuel tank was also armoured to offset this concern but it is true that some pilots were burned due to fuel tanks alighting, not surprising when faced with armour piercing rounds or cannon fire, but again this is no different from any other plane, fighter or otherwise. No plane was indestructible or without weakness. Also, to answer your question, no, I don't think I know better. I see nothing more here than the opinions of a select few. Opinions that differ greatly to a great deal of those who both faught with the Hurricane and those adversaries fighting against it who remarked it was a remarkably tough aircraft and extremely maneuverable. Plus, as mentioned in my last comment quick and easy to repair. The fact it was a doped canvas rear was actually a strength as rounds typically went clean through the shell doing little damage and rarely would catch it alight due to the dope that was impregnated in it. It then required a few patches of canvas over the top, a coating of dope and it was good as new, back in service. It was no more susceptible to fire than ANY other aircraft.
@Stimpy&Ren I have consumed hundreds of reports, documents, documentaries and first hand accounts on the Hurricane...there really isn't anything I haven't already cone across in that article. The self sealing tanks and armour were added later, that's correct, but you did not specify a period in the war. I should also point out, AGAIN, that no aircraft were immune from this issue. All prop aircraft use standard petroleum which is volatile and does not like being shot through by an armour piercing round, there is a high propensity for combustion...almost all aircraft added the fuel tanks to the section forward of the bulkhead as it was the most logical and safest place. In the fuselage made it dangerous and the wings were easy to penetrate, although many still had small wing tanks for extra range with minimal armour protection, so the Hurricane was in no way unique. There are hundreds of reports of BF109, FW190, ME110, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak, IL, Macchi, Mustang etc pilots being burned in their cockpit. It's not a problem unique to any one model so your arguement is moot. Furthermore the Hurricane was not an easy target at all, a Stuka was an easy target for eg but not a Hurricane. They were highly respected on every front they faught in, were they flawed...of course, every plane has a weakness. But they were not ridiculed by any nation. In many they were feared even late in the war when they were truly obsolete as a sole fighter but never underestimated at the hands of a capable pilot. They were also the only plane to fight in EVERY theatre of war, an accolade not to be overlooked. If it was that poor it would have been retired long before that record could have been set. It was removed as a front line fighter and relegated to tank busting and ground assault or bomber attack duties but it was still a viable aircraft and could hold its own against more modern and superior aircraft. All planes reach a period of obsolescence.
@Stimpy&Ren then clearly you don't actually read as I stated twice that my claims have also come from German, Italian and other axis power pilots. I would never put blind faith in propaganda, I intentionally read accounts from all sides to get a rounded view of history and in the case of the Hurricane it has a very positive service record.
@Stimpy&Ren that's a very flimsy argument as they gave poor reviews to every foreign aircraft out of the lend/lease agreement. We are talking about a nation that has deep rooted patriotism and propaganda that would not allow any positive review on anything not 'red'. For the record too, russian pilots were poorly trained and poorly lead so that would account for a great deal of their loses even with good aircraft like the Spitfire and P47's they had in service. You will need to try harder to denounce a superb plane.
For a documentary about the Hawker Hurricane there's surprisingly little information about the Hurricane. This could have been 10-15 minutes long and still given all relevant information.
I've seen similar documentaries, albeit some made during WWII. But they all speak about the Air Observer Corps - using binoculars, audio equipment &a reluctance to mention Radar which played a major part
An interesting documentary however a lot of sloppy research. First, the major Luftwaffe raid on the City of Coventry happened in November 14th, 1940, the first Lancaster bombers didn't enter into service until early 1942, so it was impossible the Lanc's to have done Bremen raid. The raid alluded to by the narrator was most likely the raid on the night of May 17th -18th conducted by 24 Armstrong Whitworth Whitley twin engine bombers a full six month before the Coventry raid. However, it is a matter of record that the RAF Bomber Command raid of 95 Wellingtons, Hampdens and Whitleys targeting the Tempelhof Airport near the center of Berlin angered Hitler so much that he ordered the much embarrassed Goering to target London in retaliation. Also, given how much wartime stock footage of both the Spit and Hurricane is available, why did the producers use so many shots of the later Hawker Typhoon/Tempest?
As terrible as the loss of life was, the statement about the Hindenburg at 10:30 is incorrect. The truth is that: The disaster killed 35 persons on the airship, and one member of the ground crew, but miraculously 62 of the 97 passengers and crew survived. MOST survived. So that's casts the seeds of doubt for anything else stated in the documentary. (However, ignoring the unrelated photographs shown from time to time, the rest was pretty good.) Fact-Check!
It was not unusual for some German fighter pilots to claim to have been shot down by Spitfires rather than Hurricanes because it was an embarrassment in their eyes to be shot down by a plane that was still using wood and fabric.
Re the narration at 24:52, the Germans did not sign the Versailles Treaty in the railway car; they signed the Armistice there. Also, at 33:18, Hakwer Tempests of 1944 during discussion of the Battle of Britain. Sloppy work here.
Thanks for keeping these wannabe documentarians (here's hoping) more honest. Really-- if video producer does not know the difference between Versailles treaty and the armistice, we should not trust any perspective he offers. As for Tempests flying the BoB, we must wonder again about the real purpose of the video.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS No kidding. You'd think with Google, the historian would have at least made some effort to get their facts right. Alas, the historian was either lazy, or stupid, or both.
My great grandfather hated the Hurricanes he was on Malta during the war and he sweared the Spitfires and Mustangs saved his life. If they had to depend on the hurricanes they all would've died they were such a bad plane compared to the planes of the luftwaffe
Coventry was fire stormed, because Germany used a new direction finding and targeting radio system that put far more bombs into a small area. Britain quickly countered with jamming transmitters to divert the Germans off target. But Coventry was lost. My mother, who lived in Derby (40 miles north of Coventry), said the news was suppressed but the bright glow in the sky showed there had been a very serious air raid.
I remember watching this and the Flying Fortress documentary with my brother when we were little. I liked the B-17 one but always found this one boring. Looking at it know I can see why. It's not the most engaging and well made documentary and as people are pointing out gets facts wrong in places.
@@philfreking118 Couldn't be worse, at least I know when the Lancaster was first used and that the big raid on Bremen by Lancaster's was in June 1942 1067 bombers of which 96 were Lancaster's, the heavy raids on Coventry were 1940 and 1941 so hardly revenge for something that had not happened. What about the first monplane fighter being the Hurricane when Germany had the Eindecker in WWI, Britain had the Bristol M 1 also in WWI and Germany had the Bf 109 which flew 6 months before the Hurricane, funny that the Bf 109 first flew with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine as used in the Hawker Hart and Fury biplanes.
What a mess of clips of the wrong aircraft! Typhoons and tropical modified later Hurricanes and Wellington bombers described as Lancasters. The interviews with those who actually flew the Hurricanes are the shining star of this lack lustre production
@@jacktattis143 Yes, Mr Hawker. And he knew the qualities necessary for a good combat aircraft. I am sure you know he helped develop, and introduce to combat, the Typhoon and Tempest. The Tempest is my favorite WWII RAF plane.
@@jacktattis143 Yup, no TurboSupercharger. The Tempest had an incredibly slippery design and could dive like no other. The Luftwaffe had a lot of respect for it, and the later Griffon-Powered Spitfires. My favorite USAAF plane was the P-47. My favorite WWII fighter over all was the TA-152 - talk about service ceiling especially with that pressurized cockpit.
@@AmericasChoice : The Tempest did have a supercharger no Brit plane used the Turbocharger as did the P47 and P38 different concepts. 2.The TA152 was matched at height by the PR Spitfire Mk XIX in fact it was a XIX which went to 50400 ft over Hong Kong in the 50s
@@bobgreene2892 Yeeeeaaah...everyone's concerned OBSESSIVELY about "historical accuracy" especially when it doesn't matter at all. When IT DOES MATTER they choose to stand silent.
@@bobgreene2892 You're damn right about it. Except some chose to DECIDE WHAT IS "accurate" and what is "not" - basing themselves on ...PERSONAL TASTE! lol! :D
Because it is absolute shite. What I dislike about these aircraft documentaries is that they mostly concentrated upon a single event. The Hurricane was also used as a night intruder over occupied France , Malta . N.Africa , Burma and at sea are all feathers in the aircrafts cap . Maybe someday someone will make a video including all of that.
7:00 "... the planes overhead were -without exception - biplanes of various manufacture..." Erm .... the infamous "Fokker scourge" was due to a very successful German monoplane called the Fokker EIII "Eindecker". Bit weird to say "without exception" when the most successful aircraft in 1915/1916 is actually a monoplane
Spot on, I noted that also. The Eindecker was a very important aircraft predominantly because of the ingenious “interrupter gear”. It was otherwise a relatively poor airframe compared to many biplanes of the time.
I forgotten the Eindecker, you are right, so the Hurricane being the first monoplane fighter was only beaten by the Eindekker, Bristol M 1 of 1917 and Bf 109 which flew 6 months before the Hurricane.
If you are going to make a documentary about a specific aircraft, at least open the program with a picture of the right aircraft. My initial reaction to finding a picture of a Typhoon instead a Hurricane, is it working watching the rest of this program?
Alan Wayte .... sorry mate... it was an old banger... it was good for shooting down Heinkels, Dornier and JU 88 but no match for a ME109, which was faster and could out climb it ... but who cares... they beat the Nazis and that’s what counts..
What does the Holocaust have to do with the Hurricane? It happened, it was horrible, but I wanted to learn more about the Hurricane and the pilots who flew them.
Big oof with the Hawker Typhoon title screen. All that aside, though I do like its contemporary, the Spitfire, I've always liked the rough and gruff look of the Hurricane.
This is full of very basic errors Listening posts were a small part of the whole British defense system, radar gave warning well before any sight or sound but it was well backed up by the Observation corps. If this was just a video showing interviews with pilots like Pete Brothers it would be far better. For instance saying that the attacks on RAF airfields was limited without explaining that the Luftwaffe did not know which of the airfields were fighter rather than coastal or bomber airfields and that no single fighter airfield was put out of action. The Spitfire came out of the Battle of Britain covered in glory because it was the better fighter with a higher kill and lower loss ratio against both fighters and bombers. The short film showing a Spitfire catching and destroying a Bf 110 makes sense since the Bf 110 was about as fast as a Hurricane. There is a perception that the Spitfire was given some sort of status it did not earn but at the end of the battle there was a study done which showed that the Spitfire had more than made up for being in much smaller numbers. The Hurricane did most of the work in the Battle of Britain but that is only because there were more of them. The Hurricane was that much earlier? first flight 6th November 1935, Spitfire first flight 5th of March 1936, I make that almost 4 months. The Hurricane accounted for 2/3 of all the kills, not so, just 55 % The RAF bombing caused Hitler to target London is another myth. The RAF was avoiding civilians as much as possible, you could count the numbers killed quite easily on both hands while the Luftwaffe had killed well over 1,000 in Britain with attacks on British towns and cities which was why Churchill had Berlin airport bombed by a few bombers. British Lancaster bombers made their biggest attack on a target within Germany, well 170 RAF bombers on the 3rd of June 1942 including, Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, Manchester and Wellington bombers, or maybe this is referring to the first 1,000 bomber raid with 1067 bombers, 96 were Lancaster's. The revenge by bombing Coventry seems to have been somewhat earlier, the most devastating being late 1940 and early 1941, after the raid on Bremen in June 1942 there was just one final air raid on Coventry in August 1942 when 6 people were killed. Why go off onto things which had no relevance to the Hurricane like the holocaust, I would mention the Battle of France which was mostly Hurricane, the failure of the Luftwaffe to prevent the evacuation of Dunkirk which was both Hurricane and Spitfire, the fight for Malta which was first Gladiators then Hurricanes before the Spitfire arrived and the same in North Africa, I would also mention the Sea Hurricane and the part the Hurricane played in USSR. The final big error is to say that the Hurricane was the first single wing fighter? WW I there was the Bristol M 1 introduced in 1917. The Bf 109 first flew in June 1935 or 6 months before the Hurricane. This is a very big failure.
If you are going to make a film about the hurricane you are restricted to what film footage you can get and without re showing and re using the same footage over again you have to use other footage from around the same time so be it. If you wish to nit pick and not accept the spirit of the time you were not there or done it. This is from an ex service man (not from war time but later) and watching films showing guys jumping from hastings and beverlies (all they could get their hands on) supposing to be war time they are still jumping from the infernal things so sit back and enjoy the film don't pick holes in someone elses efforts.
Guess the poster can't tell his storms apart. Should be a disclaimer; Either watch the footage or listen to the audio, because they're a hopeless mess when taken together .
Polish squadron 303 are one of those brave men! After the war they were told to leave Britain, as Britain no longer needed them. And Poland was occupied by Stalin. Britain didn't even let Poles participate in the Victory parade, despite all they did for that victory from Battle of Britain to decyphering Enigma, to Monte-Casino!
You got most of that wrong. The Poles were invited to take part in the victory parade and many Polish were to stay in Britain, they could go home if they wished but were never forced to do so. The Polish pilots did fly in the Battle of Britain but so did many others and some of them had less reason to do so. Enigma had to be deciphered in Britain because the version that the Poles had managed to break was the older simpler system, the Enigma that Britain decoded was the Nazi wartime unbreakable machine that Poland could not read. Monte Casino was a US stuff up and both New Zealand and Polish troops who were fighting for the British using British weapons did take, British troops were also rather busy fighting in Italy at the time.
How could the British ever think that a .303 cartridge could ever be a serious threat to the Luftwaffe with 7.62mm cartridges and a 20 mm cannon? Only a .50 caliber, in mounts of 4 per wing, could ever do serious damage to the excellently built and flown planes of the Luftwaffe. Thank you America for figuring this out.
As it happened those weapons did serious damage. A larger calibre would have done even more damage of course but the fact is that the damage done was sufficient to deter those Nazis from invading.
Well 7.62 and .303 are virtually the same, America didn't arrive until 1941...so just remind me if there were any air battles won between 1939-1941 using this "useless" .303 ammunition. I once flew with a gent who had 28 kills, five probables and nine damaged using the useless Hurricane with those useless .303 weapons. Mind you...at 5,000 ft I did jump out of the aircraft he was flying....
The 8 x Browning .303" MGs were synchronised so that their fire converged at ~300 yards. At that range, a 3sec burst would literally shred the target area - like moving a 2.5" chainsaw along it. German bomber crews felt safe in their armoured seats - until the Hurricanes attacked from the front, destroying the packed crew compartment. Those .303"s were devastating when used properly.
I'll say! But aren't they Tempest Vs - with that bubble canopy? Wing seems too thin, leading edge curved and the tips not rounded too. And that 109 - G variant, certainly not pre-war and where's that swastika?
This is wrong. Regarding the statement about the Hindenburg crash 'killing almost all her passengers and crew'. 35 fatalities out of 97 on board, plus one on the ground: hardly 'almost all'. This kind of false statement tends to make one doubt the validity of any further statements made.
I'm giving up on this. Wrong aircraft shown in the first shots (Typhoons not Hurricanes) later on scenes of a V1 being shot down in what was supposed to be the battle of Britain. I'm stopping before I see any more things incorrect. Badly made film.
I thought both the editor, and whoever did the historical research for this piece should be fired, or at least run out of town on a rail. I lost it when the narrator said, "World War 1 was exclusively fought with biplanes." I can count at least 10 different monoplanes that fought in the war, and I didn't bother to try counting the triplanes and aircraft with more than three wings.
Just like the P-47, it did all the dirty work and the P-51 got all the glory. The P-47 produced the highest number of aces in the ETO. including the highest, Gabreski.
no mention of the Bolshevik invasion of Poland , or the fact the German army could have destroyed the BEF but were effectively stood down by the "warmonger" Hitler... but we saved Poland ..... and handed over to the communists post war....good job ! someone said .."we fought the wrong enemy" ... history is written by the victors.
This is a dreadfull production. Do these people actually know the difference between a hurricane and a Tempest? An aeroplane and a flying bomb? A marine in a parachute while describing a pilot bailing out??? PLEASE!!!
He might mean at 33:18 but I suspect that's in the original. That sequence has a weird mix of film in it. Some of it is actually German propaganda stuff (the [captured] British fighter chasing the Bf110).
What do you mean? A Typhoon or Tempest is close enough to a Hurricane, its got two wings and a propeller... you are being very picky ;) Seriously though, dreadful production for someone who can tell the difference, won't bother watching the rest after seeing the opening credits.
It was my personal privilege and honor to know well the late Group Captain, David Green, RAF, who is one of the Hurricane pilot's interviewed in this documentary. He founded the "Spitfire Society" and, like many knowledgeable and experienced RAF fighter pilots of WW-II, he gives the Hurricane its just due.He was a fine gentleman and officer. He is missed. Happy landings, Group Captain.
Sigh! What a great start.
Title shot "The Hurricane the silent hero" has a photo of Hawker Typhoons!
Well, it's a _Hawker!_
Who signs this off? Obviously no interest in the topic. I’m off to watch my lava lamp🤪
Can’t believe it.
The son also shone, but not as brightly.
One storm is as good as any other from 80 years ago.
The unsung hero of the Battle of Britain. The "Hurry" did most of the work, and the "Spit" got all of the glory. My favourite WW2 aircraft
Unsung as are most true heroes.
Some of them were made in my home town. The plant is still there today where they now make Go Trains for the Toronto Transit System.
They did what they could with what they had and to me, they are all heroes that is their story. Many seem to forget we enjoy our freedom because of all they did!!!!
In what?
Rolls Royce Jaguars?
2ww1
Good interviews and a bit of lighthearted 'bluster' by these old Hurricane pilots regarding their roles in the BOB. Their lot is akin to that of B24 aircrews who were always overshadowed by the more glamorous and publicized B17. Hats off to them.
Yes this is a repeated quite often other examples are the Vickers Wellington, or any of the earlier twin engined RAF bombers of the early war. The Halifax and Stirlings, and Beaufighter just to mention WWII RAF types.
The Hurricane actually began life as a biplane, based on an earlier aircraft Hawker had built. The Hurricane was the first monoplane fighter to enter service with the RAF. ... The Hurricane actually began life as a biplane, based on an earlier aircraft Hawker had built.
all all play a great role together for our FREEDOM to them i say in respect god bless and thank you from our HEARTS xxxx it was breaveheat of its best
Can you imagine a guy first flying the english channel, how news worthy it was..
Golden age of aviation
Excellent and thanks for the video. This sort of history should be viewed by the young people of today!
Brilliant, thanks
Hurricane
The Silent Hero
* shows Typhoons
The Invisible Hero, too.
according to my reading of the history, this documentary is far more accurate than those others which glorify the all too fragile Spitfire over the adaptable and muscular Hurricane. thank you for this correct version of the real history!
my father-in-law flew Hurricanes, rated them far higher than the spitfire.
@@aaronshaw5897 far more durable and adaptable. supposedly, easier to fly, too.
@@JewYai according to my father-in-law it could take a lot more punishment than the spitfire. i think the polish crews proved that.
all the history confirms that, too.
At 38::22 the narrator states that Avro Lancasterx carried out a raid on Germany. The Lanc first flew in January 1941 and entered service in 1942. The air raft shown was a Wellington from the film "Target For Tonight".
The mention of the big raid in Bremen by Lancaster's would be in June 1942 when 1067 bombers attacked Bremen and just 96 of them were Lancaster's then to say Coventry was revenge for Bremen, the heavy bombing of Coventry was late 1940 and early 1941, Coventry was only bombed just once after Bremen in August 1942 and just 6 people were killed.
......and the cockpit shot is of a B17!
Certainly some glaring errors but on balance a good narrative on what was a long lived and respected fighter. One reason the Spit got more credit was 109 pilots didn't want to admit being got by the slower (but more nimble) Hurricanes. As for the pilots interviewed, modest heroes, THANK YOU.
At 10:25 it says the Hindenburg burned after her maiden flight from Germany: WRONG. She had already made 10 trips to the USA and 7 to Brazil. It was in her SECOND year of operation, in the first flight of that "season" that she burned.
Clearly, the video maker thought the research for his project would be easy, and simply ran out of energy and oxygen before he finished.
I've already concluded the historian who did the research for this doc, was a complete idiot. Even a lazy historian can Google simple facts that they completely blew.
An amazing aircraft, but always in the shadow of the spitfire my favourite underdog.
Opening titles starts with stock footage of a group of Typhoons and gets worse from there on in. oduction
achtungmark The dumb asses cannot even get the right plane in the doco's heading, opening shot !!! So really what can you believe in this doco ????
Actually during the Hindenburg disaster, only one third of the passengers perished (about 35 out of 100).
That's their credibility gone up in smoke.
@@EdMcF1 Oh their credibility went up in smoke way before they got to the part about the Hindenburg. Whoever did the historical research for this documentary was either really lazy, or incredibly stupid. Or both.
The people who make this film apparently think that when they are talking about a specific plane, they can just insert footage of any airplane they happen to find at hand, who cares if it hadn't even gone into production at that time.
They even show I think, a Fairy Barracuda at 29:15!
@@stewartw.9151
The Typhoon, Lancaster and Barracuda were all well after the Battle of Britain and so was the Lancaster raid on Bremen, in fact that raid had just 96 Lancaster's out of 1067 bombers, at least Wellingtons were in that raid, nearly 500 of them.
Start is a Typhoon . Forget it .
Quite a few mistakes. Says they signed the Treaty of Versailles in the railway carriage at Compiegne. Not right that was the Armistice and the Treaty was ratified in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles
English pilots are very amazing people and story tellers...enough said.
The greatest heros are the unsung
Seems like the front line planes that lasted through WW2 all were capable. The Stuka is constantly referred to as obsolete, but then again, if you have an airplane that can lay a bomb consistently within 20 feet of center of a stubborn or valuable target, that's hard to beat and likely no other tool in your shed can do that job quickly. There were many UK pilots that preferred the forgiveness and predictability of the Hurricane.
the hurricane was the older sister who did all the work but had the drop-dead bomb-shell younger sister who every-body loved,got the best dates and married very well indeed...
When the Hurri was mentioned and shown flying in echelon, the planes were obviously Typhoons!
it peace because of them doing this for us all thank you
Watch it . Don't listen to the haters. It's well done.
We're not haters- we're victims of a clickbait poor excuse for a "documentary" and we'll never get back the time that was wasted. If YOU think it's well done, fine. But it isn't if accuracy means anything to you.
The V1 bomb explosion (probably 1944) got shown more than a few times
The producers of this video seems to have missed that it was radar that gave the forewarning of incoming German aircrafts 27:27
The video is not about radar, it's about the Hurricane.
@@Buckoux Oh dear, I think you missed my point? That it is about the Hurricane is in the title of the video and had you clicked my link you would have seen my point.
Regards
Rudolf
It looks very beautiful and elegant design #
@Stimpy&Ren clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The Hurricane had a top speed of 340 MPH which was around 15-20 mph slower than the BF109, which was a more advanced design being slightly newer and more comparible to the Spitfire, but still far from slow. Clumsy it was not as it was always remarked as being a very stable platform for its armament and could out turn a 109, and it's fuel tank was behind the engine, forward of the bulkhead, which was armour plated and in the wing mounts. It was no more susceptible to fire than any other contemporary fighter and even withstood bullet damage better than most due to its canvas and dope frame coverings not taking major structural damage while being quick and easy to repair. Much more so than an all metal construction which took much longer and more skilled labour to repair. Perhaps you should do some research before criticizing a legendary aircraft.
@Stimpy&Ren ok, so you have contradicted yourself as you said the pilot sat above the fuel tank not that it was behind the bulkhead and that incendiary rounds would set it alight, not a few well aimed ones, which for the record is the same in any fighter as all prop aircraft have this concern and few if any fighters used incendiary rounds as they were too expensive and ineffective against metal construction planes that made up the majority of second world war designs. The Hurricanes fuel tank was also armoured to offset this concern but it is true that some pilots were burned due to fuel tanks alighting, not surprising when faced with armour piercing rounds or cannon fire, but again this is no different from any other plane, fighter or otherwise. No plane was indestructible or without weakness.
Also, to answer your question, no, I don't think I know better. I see nothing more here than the opinions of a select few. Opinions that differ greatly to a great deal of those who both faught with the Hurricane and those adversaries fighting against it who remarked it was a remarkably tough aircraft and extremely maneuverable. Plus, as mentioned in my last comment quick and easy to repair. The fact it was a doped canvas rear was actually a strength as rounds typically went clean through the shell doing little damage and rarely would catch it alight due to the dope that was impregnated in it. It then required a few patches of canvas over the top, a coating of dope and it was good as new, back in service. It was no more susceptible to fire than ANY other aircraft.
@Stimpy&Ren I have consumed hundreds of reports, documents, documentaries and first hand accounts on the Hurricane...there really isn't anything I haven't already cone across in that article. The self sealing tanks and armour were added later, that's correct, but you did not specify a period in the war. I should also point out, AGAIN, that no aircraft were immune from this issue. All prop aircraft use standard petroleum which is volatile and does not like being shot through by an armour piercing round, there is a high propensity for combustion...almost all aircraft added the fuel tanks to the section forward of the bulkhead as it was the most logical and safest place. In the fuselage made it dangerous and the wings were easy to penetrate, although many still had small wing tanks for extra range with minimal armour protection, so the Hurricane was in no way unique. There are hundreds of reports of BF109, FW190, ME110, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak, IL, Macchi, Mustang etc pilots being burned in their cockpit. It's not a problem unique to any one model so your arguement is moot. Furthermore the Hurricane was not an easy target at all, a Stuka was an easy target for eg but not a Hurricane. They were highly respected on every front they faught in, were they flawed...of course, every plane has a weakness. But they were not ridiculed by any nation. In many they were feared even late in the war when they were truly obsolete as a sole fighter but never underestimated at the hands of a capable pilot. They were also the only plane to fight in EVERY theatre of war, an accolade not to be overlooked. If it was that poor it would have been retired long before that record could have been set. It was removed as a front line fighter and relegated to tank busting and ground assault or bomber attack duties but it was still a viable aircraft and could hold its own against more modern and superior aircraft. All planes reach a period of obsolescence.
@Stimpy&Ren then clearly you don't actually read as I stated twice that my claims have also come from German, Italian and other axis power pilots. I would never put blind faith in propaganda, I intentionally read accounts from all sides to get a rounded view of history and in the case of the Hurricane it has a very positive service record.
@Stimpy&Ren that's a very flimsy argument as they gave poor reviews to every foreign aircraft out of the lend/lease agreement. We are talking about a nation that has deep rooted patriotism and propaganda that would not allow any positive review on anything not 'red'. For the record too, russian pilots were poorly trained and poorly lead so that would account for a great deal of their loses even with good aircraft like the Spitfire and P47's they had in service. You will need to try harder to denounce a superb plane.
Notice they failed to mention the Chain Home radar stations.
Still classified.
Interesting, Typhoons in the Battle of Britain?
For a documentary about the Hawker Hurricane there's surprisingly little information about the Hurricane. This could have been 10-15 minutes long and still given all relevant information.
I've seen similar documentaries, albeit some made during WWII. But they all speak about the Air Observer Corps - using binoculars, audio equipment &a reluctance to mention Radar which played a major part
An interesting documentary however a lot of sloppy research. First, the major Luftwaffe raid on the City of Coventry happened in November 14th, 1940, the first Lancaster bombers didn't enter into service until early 1942, so it was impossible the Lanc's to have done Bremen raid.
The raid alluded to by the narrator was most likely the raid on the night of May 17th -18th conducted by 24 Armstrong Whitworth Whitley twin engine bombers a full six month before the Coventry raid. However, it is a matter of record that the RAF Bomber Command raid of 95 Wellingtons, Hampdens and Whitleys targeting the Tempelhof Airport near the center of Berlin angered Hitler so much that he ordered the much embarrassed Goering to target London in retaliation.
Also, given how much wartime stock footage of both the Spit and Hurricane is available, why did the producers use so many shots of the later Hawker Typhoon/Tempest?
The Hurricane was waiting in the wings.
As terrible as the loss of life was, the statement about the Hindenburg at 10:30 is incorrect.
The truth is that:
The disaster killed 35 persons on the airship, and one member of the ground crew,
but miraculously 62 of the 97 passengers and crew survived.
MOST survived.
So that's casts the seeds of doubt for anything else stated in the documentary. (However, ignoring the unrelated photographs shown from time to time, the rest was pretty good.)
Fact-Check!
Shame they mislead watchers right at the start with the wrong model!
It was not unusual for some German fighter pilots to claim to have been shot down by Spitfires rather than Hurricanes because it was an embarrassment in their eyes to be shot down by a plane that was still using wood and fabric.
Re the narration at 24:52, the Germans did not sign the Versailles Treaty in the railway car; they signed the Armistice there.
Also, at 33:18, Hakwer Tempests of 1944 during discussion of the Battle of Britain. Sloppy work here.
Yep! The name is a bit of a giveaway as to where it was signed. ;-)
Thanks for keeping these wannabe documentarians (here's hoping) more honest. Really-- if video producer does not know the difference between Versailles treaty and the armistice, we should not trust any perspective he offers. As for Tempests flying the BoB, we must wonder again about the real purpose of the video.
Thanks! And others here have caught equally egregious mistakes. Really, a badly done documentary.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS No kidding. You'd think with Google, the historian would have at least made some effort to get their facts right. Alas, the historian was either lazy, or stupid, or both.
I only wasted 10 min and 43 seconds of my life, thank you Phil.
The planes they showed in the beginning of this video were not Hurricanes! They were Typhoons!
My great grandfather hated the Hurricanes he was on Malta during the war and he sweared the Spitfires and Mustangs saved his life. If they had to depend on the hurricanes they all would've died they were such a bad plane compared to the planes of the luftwaffe
Coventry was fire stormed, because Germany used a new direction finding and targeting radio system that put far more bombs into a small area. Britain quickly countered with jamming transmitters to divert the Germans off target. But Coventry was lost.
My mother, who lived in Derby (40 miles north of Coventry), said the news was suppressed but the bright glow in the sky showed there had been a very serious air raid.
I remember watching this and the Flying Fortress documentary with my brother when we were little. I liked the B-17 one but always found this one boring. Looking at it know I can see why. It's not the most engaging and well made documentary and as people are pointing out gets facts wrong in places.
They talk about Lancaster bombers taking the war to Germany whilst showing some footage of a random WW2 bomber which definitely isn't a Lanc.
It was a Wellington.
Originally equipped in WWII with eight 7.7mm machine guns! NO! it was originally equipped with eight .303" machine guns!
"Hindenburg...killing nearly all he passengers and crew" last time i looked, 35 out of 97 wasn't "nearly all".
Don't these people do ANY research?
no
"Helmut Goering". I'm going to go with 'no'.
And what has an airship got to do with fixed wing aircraft and the Hurricane in particular I don’t know.
@@allandavis8201 pass.i dont know.nor do the people who made the video know either. i think the resercher clueless shall we say.
How did film makers get the opening shot so wrong? Inexcusable really.
Typhoon on the intro get it right mate
fighter boys always take spotlight and glory, be it spitfire, zero, mustang... the list goes on.
but its bombers and bomber killers who win wars.
The opening shows Typhoon fighters NOT Hurricanes. There are many inaccuracies throughout this video.
I'm sure your video is much superior!LOL
Yeah I saw that. Whoever put that in should be sacked immediately.
@@philfreking118 Couldn't be worse, at least I know when the Lancaster was first used and that the big raid on Bremen by Lancaster's was in June 1942 1067 bombers of which 96 were Lancaster's, the heavy raids on Coventry were 1940 and 1941 so hardly revenge for something that had not happened.
What about the first monplane fighter being the Hurricane when Germany had the Eindecker in WWI, Britain had the Bristol M 1 also in WWI and Germany had the Bf 109 which flew 6 months before the Hurricane, funny that the Bf 109 first flew with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine as used in the Hawker Hart and Fury biplanes.
A book by Leo Mckinstry The Hurricane Victor of the Battle of Britain is a must read for Hurry fans .
Patrick Brennan ???
The commentator keeps calling Britain England . Speaking for the rest of Britain , he can Foxtrot Oscar .
Yes noticed the title blooper
They were and all who flew and serviced them were heros. Very much respect.
What a mess of clips of the wrong aircraft! Typhoons and tropical modified later Hurricanes and Wellington bombers described as Lancasters. The interviews with those who actually flew the Hurricanes are the shining star of this lack lustre production
Many pilots preferred it to the Spitfire. Tighter turning capability, better gun platform and more durable.
Americas: Roland Beamont did. And RAF had a policy start with Hawker stay with Hawker. Oh there were exceptions
@@jacktattis143 Yes, Mr Hawker. And he knew the qualities necessary for a good combat aircraft. I am sure you know he helped develop, and introduce to combat, the Typhoon and Tempest. The Tempest is my favorite WWII RAF plane.
@@AmericasChoice : Yes too bad the Tempest could not get above 38000ft but as a low level fighter it had the wood on the Spit
@@jacktattis143 Yup, no TurboSupercharger. The Tempest had an incredibly slippery design and could dive like no other. The Luftwaffe had a lot of respect for it, and the later Griffon-Powered Spitfires. My favorite USAAF plane was the P-47. My favorite WWII fighter over all was the TA-152 - talk about service ceiling especially with that pressurized cockpit.
@@AmericasChoice : The Tempest did have a supercharger no Brit plane used the Turbocharger as did the P47 and P38 different concepts.
2.The TA152 was matched at height by the PR Spitfire Mk XIX in fact it was a XIX which went to 50400 ft over Hong Kong in the 50s
Was that ... 'Alcott and Brown' at 9.18??
Alcock and Bull story.
So the start of what is a series about British fighters has a Typhoon. The rest of the story is about the Hurricane
I would have watched if you had put the film title with actual Hurricanes, not Typhoons.
A bit short of information on the Hawker Hunter.
Very nice documentary! Thanks for uploading! :)
PS. >>> IDK why there's so many people in the comments-section BITCHING about this?...
Read the comments-- they concern a little thing called historic accuracy.
@@bobgreene2892 Yeeeeaaah...everyone's concerned OBSESSIVELY about "historical accuracy" especially when it doesn't matter at all. When IT DOES MATTER they choose to stand silent.
@@2serveand2protect -- Historical accuracy is the fundamental basis for any evaluation, and anything else is self-indulgent fiction.
@@bobgreene2892 You're damn right about it. Except some chose to DECIDE WHAT IS "accurate" and what is "not" - basing themselves on ...PERSONAL TASTE! lol! :D
Because it is absolute shite. What I dislike about these aircraft documentaries is that they mostly concentrated upon a single event. The Hurricane was also used as a night intruder over occupied France , Malta . N.Africa , Burma and at sea are all feathers in the aircrafts cap . Maybe someday someone will make a video including all of that.
The work for the battle of britain 1940,,,,,,,
Wow...I live just near Gilsland...never knew!
'wing camera'?
23:15 'exploding' plane , it's a V1 doodglebug and they started in june 1944 ,a hurricane would not be able to catch it .
Who on Earth was ‘Helmut’ Goering??
Hermann's dog? His goldfish? Take your pick! Otherwise, I'll be screwed if I know!
7:00 "... the planes overhead were -without exception - biplanes of various manufacture..."
Erm .... the infamous "Fokker scourge" was due to a very successful German monoplane called the Fokker EIII "Eindecker".
Bit weird to say "without exception" when the most successful aircraft in 1915/1916 is actually a monoplane
Spot on, I noted that also. The Eindecker was a very important aircraft predominantly because of the ingenious “interrupter gear”. It was otherwise a relatively poor airframe compared to many biplanes of the time.
I forgotten the Eindecker, you are right, so the Hurricane being the first monoplane fighter was only beaten by the Eindekker, Bristol M 1 of 1917 and Bf 109 which flew 6 months before the Hurricane.
I counted no less than 10 monoplanes from World War 1. Just about every one had them, and the Germans had several types besides the Fokker.
19yr olds today need a safe space because words hurt their feelings.
If you are going to make a documentary about a specific aircraft, at least open the program with a picture of the right aircraft. My initial reaction to finding a picture of a Typhoon instead a Hurricane, is it working watching the rest of this program?
Typhoons.
Can't even get the opening shot right with titles. Weak.
5.40 .. why is that man waving his hat have two hats?
Typhoons shown in the opening of a film about the Hurricane! Very poor quality. A missed opportunity.
The hurricane was a Morris minor compared to the German BMW 109
Don’t be stupid the Hurricane was on a par with MW109E in 1940 from a flying point of view it was far easier and a much better gun platform...
ME109
Alan Wayte .... sorry mate... it was an old banger... it was good for shooting down Heinkels, Dornier and JU 88 but no match for a ME109, which was faster and could out climb it ... but who cares... they beat the Nazis and that’s what counts..
@@franceleeparis37 hurricane no match and spitfire (all marks before the 5) werent as great as bf109e series.
What does the Holocaust have to do with the Hurricane? It happened, it was horrible, but I wanted to learn more about the Hurricane and the pilots who flew them.
Hawker hurricane hero
Big oof with the Hawker Typhoon title screen. All that aside, though I do like its contemporary, the Spitfire, I've always liked the rough and gruff look of the Hurricane.
do the people who made this program tell the hurricane from a typhoon ?
This is full of very basic errors
Listening posts were a small part of the whole British defense system, radar gave warning well before any sight or sound but it was well backed up by the Observation corps.
If this was just a video showing interviews with pilots like Pete Brothers it would be far better. For instance saying that the attacks on RAF airfields was limited without explaining that the Luftwaffe did not know which of the airfields were fighter rather than coastal or bomber airfields and that no single fighter airfield was put out of action.
The Spitfire came out of the Battle of Britain covered in glory because it was the better fighter with a higher kill and lower loss ratio against both fighters and bombers. The short film showing a Spitfire catching and destroying a Bf 110 makes sense since the Bf 110 was about as fast as a Hurricane. There is a perception that the Spitfire was given some sort of status it did not earn but at the end of the battle there was a study done which showed that the Spitfire had more than made up for being in much smaller numbers. The Hurricane did most of the work in the Battle of Britain but that is only because there were more of them.
The Hurricane was that much earlier? first flight 6th November 1935, Spitfire first flight 5th of March 1936, I make that almost 4 months.
The Hurricane accounted for 2/3 of all the kills, not so, just 55 %
The RAF bombing caused Hitler to target London is another myth. The RAF was avoiding civilians as much as possible, you could count the numbers killed quite easily on both hands while the Luftwaffe had killed well over 1,000 in Britain with attacks on British towns and cities which was why Churchill had Berlin airport bombed by a few bombers.
British Lancaster bombers made their biggest attack on a target within Germany, well 170 RAF bombers on the 3rd of June 1942 including, Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, Manchester and Wellington bombers, or maybe this is referring to the first 1,000 bomber raid with 1067 bombers, 96 were Lancaster's.
The revenge by bombing Coventry seems to have been somewhat earlier,
the most devastating being late 1940 and early 1941, after the raid on Bremen in June 1942 there was just one final air raid on Coventry in August 1942 when 6 people were killed.
Why go off onto things which had no relevance to the Hurricane like the holocaust, I would mention the Battle of France which was mostly Hurricane, the failure of the Luftwaffe to prevent the evacuation of Dunkirk which was both Hurricane and Spitfire, the fight for Malta which was first Gladiators then Hurricanes before the Spitfire arrived and the same in North Africa, I would also mention the Sea Hurricane and the part the Hurricane played in USSR.
The final big error is to say that the Hurricane was the first single wing fighter? WW I there was the Bristol M 1 introduced in 1917. The Bf 109 first flew in June 1935 or 6 months before the Hurricane.
This is a very big failure.
If you are going to make a film about the hurricane you are restricted to what film footage you can get and without re showing and re using the same footage over again you have to use other footage from around the same time so be it. If you wish to nit pick and not accept the spirit of the time you were not there or done it. This is from an ex service man (not from war time but later) and watching films showing guys jumping from hastings and beverlies (all they could get their hands on) supposing to be war time they are still jumping from the infernal things so sit back and enjoy the film don't pick holes in someone elses efforts.
The Hurricane vs. the Spitfire was maybe something like the P40 vs. the P51 wherein the less heralded one actually did most of the fighting.
geoff dearth- True...another comparison would be the P-51 vs. the P-47.
The Spitfire did more fighting than any of these other fighters.
Guess the poster can't tell his storms apart. Should be a disclaimer; Either watch the footage or listen to the audio, because they're a hopeless mess when taken together .
Polish squadron 303 are one of those brave men! After the war they were told to leave Britain, as Britain no longer needed them. And Poland was occupied by Stalin. Britain didn't even let Poles participate in the Victory parade, despite all they did for that victory from Battle of Britain to decyphering Enigma, to Monte-Casino!
You got most of that wrong. The Poles were invited to take part in the victory parade and many Polish were to stay in Britain, they could go home if they wished but were never forced to do so. The Polish pilots did fly in the Battle of Britain but so did many others and some of them had less reason to do so. Enigma had to be deciphered in Britain because the version that the Poles had managed to break was the older simpler system, the Enigma that Britain decoded was the Nazi wartime unbreakable machine that Poland could not read. Monte Casino was a US stuff up and both New Zealand and Polish troops who were fighting for the British using British weapons did take, British troops were also rather busy fighting in Italy at the time.
@@barrierodliffe4155 No they weren't . BRITS WERE TOO AFRAID OF STALIN AT THAT POINT.
BESIDES WHAT VICTORY PARADE IF YOUR MOTHERLAND IS OCCUPIED?
@@sergehalytsky
If you had a clue it was not the British that were afraid of Stalin.
So! don't complain about not taking part in the victory parade.
If I had a clue? f You had a clue you'd apologize for your country's betrayal!
Can't hear what theyre saying over the music and engine noise.
You didn't miss much
Typhoon ... I am out, lol
How could the British ever think that a .303 cartridge could ever be a serious threat to the Luftwaffe with 7.62mm cartridges and a 20 mm cannon? Only a .50 caliber, in mounts of 4 per wing, could ever do serious damage to the excellently built and flown planes of the Luftwaffe. Thank you America for figuring this out.
As it happened those weapons did serious damage. A larger calibre would have done even more damage of course but the fact is that the damage done was sufficient to deter those Nazis from invading.
Well 7.62 and .303 are virtually the same, America didn't arrive until 1941...so just remind me if there were any air battles won between 1939-1941 using this "useless" .303 ammunition. I once flew with a gent who had 28 kills, five probables and nine damaged using the useless Hurricane with those useless .303 weapons. Mind you...at 5,000 ft I did jump out of the aircraft he was flying....
Set your gun convergence to 250yds as most proper hurri pilots would and 8 .303 would buzz saw yer wing off.
Mr Ken Well 1800+ downed Luftwaffe in this Battle were all to .303
The 8 x Browning .303" MGs were synchronised so that their fire converged at ~300 yards. At that range, a 3sec burst would literally shred the target area - like moving a 2.5" chainsaw along it. German bomber crews felt safe in their armoured seats - until the Hurricanes attacked from the front, destroying the packed crew compartment. Those .303"s were devastating when used properly.
It's so bad ! The first picture is of a Typhoon ! It has no credibility . A garbage film .
I'll say! But aren't they Tempest Vs - with that bubble canopy? Wing seems too thin, leading edge curved and the tips not rounded too.
And that 109 - G variant, certainly not pre-war and where's that swastika?
@@ianb4801 These are Typhoons - notice the lack of a leading fairing on the tail fin, aslo the positioning of the exhausts & a slightly shorter nose.
This is wrong. Regarding the statement about the Hindenburg crash 'killing almost all her passengers and crew'. 35 fatalities out of 97 on board, plus one on the ground: hardly 'almost all'. This kind of false statement tends to make one doubt the validity of any further statements made.
I'm giving up on this. Wrong aircraft shown in the first shots (Typhoons not Hurricanes) later on scenes of a V1 being shot down in what was supposed to be the battle of Britain. I'm stopping before I see any more things incorrect. Badly made film.
I thought both the editor, and whoever did the historical research for this piece should be fired, or at least run out of town on a rail. I lost it when the narrator said, "World War 1 was exclusively fought with biplanes." I can count at least 10 different monoplanes that fought in the war, and I didn't bother to try counting the triplanes and aircraft with more than three wings.
Helmut Goering????
Of course, he was a pal of Arnold Hitler hehe.
Oh I forgot also that Winifred Churchill didn't like them at all.
@@MerlinVI And at 9:19 it says Alcott and Brown
Oh just add that to the huge list of things they got wrong.
They cant even get the front picture correct, so how factual is it going to be?
The filmmakers clearly have aircraft identification problems.
Just like the P-47, it did all the dirty work and the P-51 got all the glory. The P-47 produced the highest number of aces in the ETO. including the highest, Gabreski.
Opening scene:
Hawker Typhoon
Indeed... at LEAST it was a Hawker product!
no mention of the Bolshevik invasion of Poland , or the fact the German army could have destroyed the BEF but were effectively stood down by the "warmonger" Hitler... but we saved Poland ..... and handed over to the communists post war....good job ! someone said .."we fought the wrong enemy" ... history is written by the victors.
Not only then. Don't the people making this programme know the difference?
This is a dreadfull production. Do these people actually know the difference between a hurricane and a Tempest?
An aeroplane and a flying bomb?
A marine in a parachute while describing a pilot bailing out??? PLEASE!!!
Are you referring to the flight of typhoons in the opening credits?
He might mean at 33:18 but I suspect that's in the original. That sequence has a weird mix of film in it. Some of it is actually German propaganda stuff (the [captured] British fighter chasing the Bf110).
Hay..., there is an audience to be parted from money.......,fake news is always so cost effective.
What do you mean? A Typhoon or Tempest is close enough to a Hurricane, its got two wings and a propeller... you are being very picky ;) Seriously though, dreadful production for someone who can tell the difference, won't bother watching the rest after seeing the opening credits.
I was going to write the same. Cynical misuse of archive film serves only the maker - and not for too long, I hope.