Im about to throw all of you for a loop. The entire crash scene was several miniatures...not one was a real full scale B-17. Amazing how the sound, elements, and real sky and backdrop will fool the eye. I've seen this film about 20 times and just today found a small interview from one of the miniature makers who talked about this film. They were brilliant in using false perspective.
Yes i know one of the model makers, a very talented guy on the indoor scale rubber power scene. He said they were dragging one behind a truck for a crash land scene ( might have been this one) and it became airborne, he said they built it a little too well!
When I was watching this for the first time, I thought “OK one wheel down, this isn’t too bad...OK a nice gentle touchdown, not too bad...OK and stop, that was a good crash landing, what went wr-“ *BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM*
Yeah only fuck way that would be possible is if the pilot didn’t empty the fuel or the Bombay doors were jammed. As soon as the wheel was down they were made sure they didn’t have any bombs or any gas
@@hollow34 It's the fumes that explode, liquid fuel is a lot harder to ignite than gas, so a nearly empty tank is like a bomb in and of itself, if that engine fire hit the fuel lines it'd be like a short fuse to a big bomb.
@@commander2552 if you look up a schematic of the plane it has fuel tanks throughout the wings and auxiliary tanks in the bomb bay, plus anywhere vapour collects can explode. Engines catch fire but don't explode
No it is not. The French B-17 crashed after this scene was taken. They made a full size replica tail and used an pembroke aircraft and hacked its fuselage to pieces.
I remember back when they were making the movie, and it happened. They interviewed one of the production crew, who was present when it happened. She recounted how as she was watching the crash, she said to herself, ..."oh no dear God, this is only a movie". Luckily as you said the crew survived, but a piece of history was destroyed. I know people are opposed to this, but I wish they wouldn't take these planes up anymore. A replica is one thing, but when one of the originals is destroyed, it cannot be replaced.
@@jjahsepuyeshd I do understand what you mean. But that crash was not intentional. It just happened and was an accident. Movie might be helping to keep the airframe longer airworthy as it requires a lot of money to maintain these. Planes belong to the skies and should be flown as long as possible. Only when there is too much stress damage and beyond repair, then to museum.
My uncle flew in a B 17 out of Foggia, Italy. He actually watched a crash just like the one in the movie. He said even if they shut down the engines and feathered the props, you always risked an explosion due to fuel vapors or even a small amount of fuel in the tanks. He sbould know, he survived over 50 missions.
Conversely, I had an uncle who was a B-17 navigator...and the sole survivor of not only his crew but an entire nine-ship formation that got bounced over the North Sea during an unescorted night strike. The plane just disintegrated around him: one moment he was at the little desk in the nose compartment under the cockpit and the next he was falling through the sky. Supposedly only one other guy managed to hit the silk but didn't survive the boat ride back to shore.
I worked with a man named John White . He was an amazing artist , he used to paint the pictures on the planes for his squadron. He told me some of the bad things he witnessed . He worked with Boeing for 40 years ,and retired, being bored, he worked in a grocery store with me. He painted a B17 on the back of my bomber jacket, somebody offered me $ 400 for it..... I still have it noway am I giving it up
@@blackjac5000 Sounds like the oxygen lines ripped. B17s had an issue where the oxygen lines would get torn by the movement of the engineers turret, causing an explosion
I remember watching a documentary on PBS called The War. There was a bit about the B-17's and the narrator said 25 combat missions were required before the crew completed their tour of duty and went on saying that because of the high casualty rate in the Air Force, the average number of missions a B-17 completed before being shot down, was 11.
@@bigiron383 that was a common thing with the bombers. They would take so much damage that parts start failing to work, especially the landing gear. That’s why they have the manual hand cranks to lower the wheels, they even had one for the bomb doors in case it failed to open or close.
Yep. One of the bits of trivia I find intriguing is that the 8th Air Force, alone, had more personnel KIA in WWII than the USMC (26,000 compared to 19,733). That's how much of a meat grinder aerial combat was at the time.
The tour length increased during the war, and so did survivability. It got bumped to 30 and then 35 missions as the quality of opposition continued to decline.
I looked this up, and apparently (not sure how accurate this is) there was some design flaw where busted fuel lines would leak fumes into the body of the plane. The engines, likely on fire would initiate the explosion. The pilot probably didn't have enough time to cut the fuel to that engine. And then it sits there with limited air flow.
There was good reason for the B17 to explode. The B17 exploded due to leaking fuel vapour igniting. A genuine danger that still exists today when an aircraft crashes lands on its fuselage and wings and not its landing gear. This B17 one-wheel down crash landing and explosion in the film was based like for like on an actual B17 that crashed and exploded the same way during WW2. Each tragic event of a B17 portrayed in the movie is an accurate recreation of a tragic event that really happened to B17 bombers during WW2.
Every time I watch this scene, I think -- it would have been a smart move to kill the ignition / engines a moment before touchdown! Might have prevented the explosion. :-(
Yeah Fire was the killer of many Bombers, hell like 85% of B-17s had WOODEN FLOORS in them! And I don't think these planes had lightning rods, so its a possibility these things could get hit by lightning right?
Friction alone would cause sparks. Not sure if that model let the pilots dump their fuel in-flight, but that might have helped. Then again, it’s the fumes that burn.
Maybe but we don’t know what happened inside the bomber, a crash landing like that could’ve disoriented the pilots and crew, they could have been injured and weren’t thinking of shutting off the engine. Plus if there was fuel leakage from sliding on the ground or from being hit and friction could’ve caused a big combustion. Overall it’s 50/50
I don't recall the Memphis Belle ever "crashed". It made it through all 25 sorties (or missions) in great condition with the 26th sortie being flown across the "pond" back to the US
I think it’s the movie, Memphis Belle, but it’s not the Memphis Belle because the Memphis Belle is still alive. It’s in Dayton Ohio Air Force Museum. It’s pretty nice to see it going back tomorrow
Помню в РБ на одном движке прилетел на базу с поле боя. Б17. На подлете к базе вижу 2 метки врага. летят комне. Позвал союзника на помощ. Отозвался случайный союзник и передал продержатся. И что летит уже. Первого который подлетел, слил удачно петровичем. А когда и второй за ним заходил на шесть, подоспел союзник и завязался между ними догфаит. Но тем не менее тот последни пробил и второй движок изща чего тот уже начал грется и дыметь. С пробитыми частями фузеляжа и отколотыми частями оперения крыла с небольшим креном в правый крыло. Я думал что движок не вытянет и на этом все. Отыгрался. Но все же я дотянул до глисады и коптя движками и креном, удачно посадил старушку. Тот союзник вышел победителем против врага. И пролетая спросил как я там. Все норм. Спасибо. Чинюсь и бк пополняю. И тут уже игра завершился нашей победой. Доброе воспоминания из далекого 14го года.
The B-17G "Nine o Nine" crashed today during an emergency landing.. no good details yet but considering the aircraft veered off the runway this is kind of what I imagine. If the landing gear was damaged by hitting something the plane would be out of control on the ground.
I went aboard her a couple months before at a different air show. I could barely fit at the roof gunner station. That combined with the massive price tag put me off to taking a ride in her.
A visually convincing crash landing, but its just a large R/C B-17. If you look closely at the push rod tubes on the radial engines, you can tell its a fake. The engines on a genuine Boeing B-17 don't look like that at all.
The b-17 couldn’t dump fuel. And piston aircraft are run off a system that powers the spark plugs named the “magneto system” or maggs for short. You turn that off to inhibit the ability from the spark plugs firing and igniting leaking fuel. And if you cut fuel to the engine it will not pump that fuel to the engine, keeping the fuel away from potential fires. Also if they turned off their generators that would also help with a fire hazard.
@@mikejordan8259 B17 2 ways trip from England to Germany and not running out of fuel? I don't think so. My point is the plane's replica explode from the inside of the body, looks really fake
@@ALcaponechannel of course.. they just put a bomb inside a B17 mockup and blew it up.. but as you say that doesnt happen like that.. the B17 could had catch fire and burn ..but not just sudenly explode specially when there wasnt even any fire or smoke after it stoped
Air tanks might be at fault, even when not fully loaded they are extremely dangerous and if hit might set the whole thing ablaze in an explosive fashion.
The B-17 used in the film is actually Sally B but they repainted one side to Memphis bell since the B-17 is now kept at the duxford air museum in the UK and I know that because I saw it there
Well no actually im right since the B-17 was used at some point but probably not through the whole film don't test I'm an aviation expert and I saw it in real life all you have seen is an internet photo
Of course it's not a real B-17. It's a large model. It could hav blown up from the fuselage, if they landed with a full bomb load, but they would never try that. If they had been unable to drop the bombs, they would have bailed out.
@Ceffereno Rivera i didnt made the movie and i think this was bullshit.. so i dont need to explain anything.. im pointing out this plane wouldnt had bombs left when coming for landing.. specially with damage ..even if they had not droped the bombs they would had dumped them and if not posible they would had bailed out
+Lucas Martínez Parra The B-17 was damaged from inside and destroyed. Many reasons such as, fuel in damaged engine, fire in the interior or even a pilot smoking.
Go search RUclips for gear up landings. There are plenty of videos where props get bent up like that, now I'm no pilot but I understand they shut down the engines to try and minimize the damage to the props in such a situation.
if the b-17 is returning to base its common sense that it will have almost no fuel and barely any fuel reserves. if they have dropped the load where is the explosions coming from? that part always confused me because the aircraft should be in a safe state to land. its also procedure in that if the aircraft is damaged or is doing an emergency landing to either dump fuel, or put into a holding pattern to burn fuel so when it does land its not a full of fuel. but its important to understand a movie is a movie and its done for effect.
My ant who leaved in Norwich we would went on the summer time to visit her from Belfast me and mom and dad she used to tell me about us bomber crashing in front of her she was coming home from work on her bicycle the guy was looking at her and she was looking at him below up that scene from Memphis Belle of the crash landing remind me of my ant she was 87 when she died she was one of the best
Помню в РБ на одном движке прилетел на базу с поле боя. Б17. На подлете к базе вижу 2 метки врага. летят комне. Позвал союзника на помощ. Отозвался случайный союзник и передал продержатся. И что летит уже. Первого который подлетел, слил удачно петровичем. А когда и второй за ним заходил на шесть, подоспел союзник и завязался между ними догфаит. Но тем не менее тот последни пробил и второй движок изща чего тот уже начал грется и дыметь. С пробитыми частями фузеляжа и отколотыми частями оперения крыла с небольшим креном в правый крыло. Я думал что движок не вытянет и на этом все. Отыгрался. Но все же я дотянул до глисады и коптя движками и креном, удачно посадил старушку. Тот союзник вышел победителем против врага. И пролетая спросил как я там. Все норм. Спасибо. Чинюсь и бк пополняю. И тут уже игра завершился нашей победой. Доброе воспоминания из далекого 14го года.
Knew it was fake the first time I saw it. Props that are powered when they strike the ground are twisted, not just bent back. Also the prop on the #1 engine was still turning after striking the ground. That doesn't happen either.
The air war was so bloody it was the equivalent of a second front form 1942 on. 160,000 Allied airmen died in the skies over Germany, including 80,000 Americans, which is as many as were killed in the Western European campaign. It was a horrendously costly and inefficient campaign for extremely dubious strategic value - German war production continued to rise until mid-1944 despite the destruction of its cities. The Americans, to their credit, stuck to logistical targets and did not engage in saturation bombing of civilians until near the very end of the war, and conducted the very effective bombing of oil refineries, storage depots and transportation networks from 1943-45 that DID eventually severely hurt German war production.
From what I've read/seen on tv; The US never got close to their targets until much later in the war. The british had began in 39 trying to hit targets by day but the skills and equipment hadnt been developed yet and lots of planes were lost. Once the bombing of london started there really wasnt any moral or technical issue with bombing german cities by night. The Americans thought heavily armed and armoured bombers flying at day could protect themselves and hit targets accurately - they were not correct; and most of their bombs wound up in the same places as the Brits did (all over the place). Better equipment and escort fighters eventually lead to more accurate bombing of refineries though apparently.
The moral issues remained, because the Germans did actually attempt to limit their bombing of London to the factories and port facilities of the East End of London. The British engaged in saturation bombing where they attempted to kill as many civilians as possible, based on one extremely dubious and poorly researched study of 'dehousing' conducted in 1941 that was challenged by other reports before and after it. But they seized on that one, motivated as much by emotion as rational thought. Arthur Harris of Bomber Command fame actually gloried in the ruin and death the bombing brought to Germany. (To be fair, so did Curtis LeMay, the American commander who bombed Japan's cities indiscriminately.) He flew into a rage when Eisenhower requisitioned most of his fleet for the far more effective close air support it provided during the Normandy Campaign. Harris was so careless with the lives of his own men he was referred to as "Butcher" Harris. Dresden was where the bombing campaign's moral issues become most stark. The city had no strategic value and was bombed three months before the end of the war, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Obviously, the Germans did not have any claim to the moral high ground, as what they did on the ground was so much worse. But my point is that the air campaign was a terrible waste of life and resources on both sides that, had the Allies not been as driven by vengeance, might have been conducted much more efficiently, even with the technical limitations of the 1940s. For instance, Albert Speer said that had the Allies conducted 24/7 bombing of just railroads or factories, the German war effort would have collapsed in months. Instead, the British would bomb the railroads and factories during the night, and during the day, slave labourers would rebuild them, while the Americans were bombing other targets.
The germans attempted to bomb ports and factories in the same way the British did. For example Coventry was an old city and the factories were entwined with the housing areas - as was the case with many of the german cities. The target would have officially been 'factory districts' - knowing full well that thats where the houses were - the british and the germans both had this mentality, the British were just better equipped to carry it out as the war went on. The US bombing was no better - it was inaccurate, especially at the beginning. Bombs falling on houses in daylight are not in any way better than bombs falling on houses at night. As for Dresden; 722 of the bombers were British and 527 US - if you want to believe that the US bombs were all falling on factories whilst the british ones were inaccurate instruments of death... seems a bit naive. Dresden was a medieval city largely made of timber houses with factories all around - it was always going to burn - in fact, this was part of the reason it was selected. Toward the end of the war, targets that would burn were chosen simply *because* they would burn. That goes for both the US and British. Shame really isnt it - it probably would have been beautiful to see today. I dont know if this is true, but i've heard the argument that the west knew that the soviets would inherit the eastern cities and just wanted to destroy them first - hence a big raid toward the end of the war. The place was full of refugees too. If we'd lost the war (hypothetically) it would have been considered a war crime. The damage caused by individual raids to the war machine is difficult to judge except in individual cases - i.e. when the RAF sank the Tirpitz, or blew up the dams at the ruhr, or when US and Brit bombers specifically targeted refineries and rail yards etc. However what is clear, is that the strategic campaign against cities in effect opened up a third front for germany - 2 million men were required to man the anti aircraft guns and resources had to be directed to supplying this effort. Anti aircraft guns shooting down planes would certainly have been translated into tanks killing men on the ground if the air campaign hadn't been carried out. From a moral point of view, the germans had already bombed warsaw, rotterdam, london etc. at the outset of the war and before they were attacked. These were not precision strikes, they were trying to intimidate populace; morally they did not have a leg to stand on. Finally (and sorry for the long message - i just love war history despite hating war) Arthur Harris was loved by his aircrews; despite his nickname. Before he arrived, there was no clear strategy in relation to bomber command and their equipment was not suitable. It was common to send 12 slow low flying Sterling bombers to attack berlin during day time for example - and it was common for not a single one to return. Arthur was the person who called a spade a spade - i.e. mass formations, of heavy bombers at night with a clear goal of knocking germany out by destroying cities; demanding resources for the effort, making sure his crews were looked after as well as they could be and so on. The bombers being taken for close air support during the invasion made complete sense - everyone at the time could see that - however Arthur was convinced his method would work and wanted to keep trying - that enthusiasm and belief is what made him the right man for the job. He watched the bombs fall on london early in the war and there are two quotes which i think concisely reflect what drove him and convinced him his path was the right one; 1. The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind. Statement of 1942, at the start of the bombing campaign against Germany 2. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier
Well, you know your history dude. I appreciate an exchange with someone who does know what they're talking about rather than reactionary comments. I should have clarified in my initial comment that by "until near the end of the war" I meant that I was aware that the Americans indeed bombed Dresden with the intent to kill indiscriminately. And they did so in the entire Pacific Campaign, of course. I won't argue the moral issues on the German side, because they were indeed the first to engage in unprovoked terror bombing, and they actually killed as many if not more people in the aerial bombardment of Soviet cities than died in the bombing of Germany. I really do think there was something wrong with Harris, however. IMO he had a sadistic streak that probably weighed in the balance in favour of the dehousing strategy, although he was far from the only one who wanted revenge and only one of many individuals who decided the character of the bombing campaign. I think that if the British had debated the issue longer in 1942 and not let the desire for vengeance cloud their judgment, they could have conducted a much more efficient campaign and ended the war far sooner. IMO Curtis LeMay was also bloodthirsty, which almost had world-ending consequences in 1962 when as USAAF Chief of Staff he could not adjust his wartime kill-em-all mentality to the realities of the nuclear age. He actually believed the 'first-strike' policy against the Soviet Union would work, because he *wanted* to believe it. But it was impossible, the Soviets had too many nuclear-armed jets and submarines, and he knew it. He also fiercely advocated for the bombing of Cuba, an unbelievably dangerous gamble even given what they knew at the time (and now we know it would have been suicidal). But I digress. You have given a good overview of a defense of the air campaign. My own stance is still a critical one. With that in mind, I think you might like the 2006 debate between A.C. Grayling and Christopher Hitchens (RIP) here, after Grayling wrote a book critical of the campaign called 'Among the Dead Cities': ruclips.net/video/3doYSqBWhZI/видео.html
Thanks mate I'll check that link out. I love these sorts of chats - ideally I like sitting in a dark pub drinking beer talking endlessly about WW2. Good chatting to you.
I'm no expert but I have read a bit about the B-17. While they're reliable they we prone to leak fuel and oil sometimes. Crews were even forbidden to take smoking materials with them on the planes because they could start a fire. Now this is just a movie but obviously this plane was battle damaged but who is to say that fumes or something didn't leak into the cabin and cause the plane to explode?
This happened, but not quite as depicted. There's B&W footage out there of a B-17 bellying in with no gear down and as the plane slides to a stop one of the wings blew up and turned the plane into a pyre. Vapor in an empty fuel tank is MUCH more volatile than a full tank and sparks from a damaged engine likely set them off. The real footage is a lot more chilling than this bit.
Hated this movie, because it is no where close to actual events, the original documentary of the Memphis Belle is a great piece of work. Watch the original, and you will see that the movie is no where close to what really happened.
Truth is the Memphis Bell never crashed at the end it's all a Hollywood ending and not what really happened,she wasn't crashed or heavily damaged she landed normal and that was it.
What the fuck exploded though? I mean, id understand if a fuel tank got ruptured in the wings but then the wing would blow up and it wouldnt be nearly as big of an explosion
Unless it had a 'hang up' ie a bomb that didn't release, can't see why it would have gone up like that. Not enough fuel left after a trip like that for that kind of ending. Anyone?
Fuel levels were typically low when they returned to base, but fuel vapors are still dangerous, especially when there is battle damage. There could also be hydraulic fluid leaking somewhere hot and could also catch on fire. There are many instances of bombers returning from missions and burning after crash-landing. While it isn't the Hollywood-type explosion, fires do spread quickly. Refer to the B-29 that attempted to fly off the ice where it crashed, and the APU motor dislodged, caught fire and burned down the plane.
Im about to throw all of you for a loop. The entire crash scene was several miniatures...not one was a real full scale B-17. Amazing how the sound, elements, and real sky and backdrop will fool the eye. I've seen this film about 20 times and just today found a small interview from one of the miniature makers who talked about this film. They were brilliant in using false perspective.
Ty...exatcly what i was looking for...should be top comment..
However the burning b-17 was an actual b-17
@@Sgt-lott10 Sorry nope, all miniatures. Watch the doc about the miniatures team who made them.
Yes i know one of the model makers, a very talented guy on the indoor scale rubber power scene. He said they were dragging one behind a truck for a crash land scene ( might have been this one) and it became airborne, he said they built it a little too well!
Glad my movie eye didn't fail me, it's great visually for sure but didn't crash with the weight of a heavy plane
My plane in war thunder: slightly touches the ground
Also my plane: 1:14
Meanwhile Me-262 And Ar234 land on their engines just fine.
Man. Can't believe war thunder's been around for more than 365 years and 6 months.
Yep
@@francibalanci5617 Like a combat landing in Battlestar
When I was watching this for the first time, I thought “OK one wheel down, this isn’t too bad...OK a nice gentle touchdown, not too bad...OK and stop, that was a good crash landing, what went wr-“ *BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM*
Everything was perfect until hollywood stepped in.
@@scrawn9721 No, its possible in irl.
"They might be okay..."
**
"...Well, no, probably not now."
Yeah only fuck way that would be possible is if the pilot didn’t empty the fuel or the Bombay doors were jammed. As soon as the wheel was down they were made sure they didn’t have any bombs or any gas
I remember seeing this scene for the first time, I thought the crew was safe, I was shocked when the B17 exploded.
It would have no bombs on board to blow up like that, it would have very little fuel so it certainly wouldn't explode like that
@@hollow34 its more likely to explode like that at the end of the mission the fuel tanks are empty so filled with more volatile vapour.
@@hollow34 It's the fumes that explode, liquid fuel is a lot harder to ignite than gas, so a nearly empty tank is like a bomb in and of itself, if that engine fire hit the fuel lines it'd be like a short fuse to a big bomb.
@@bigmike9947 would the entire plane explode like that? Wouldn't it be more the engines? Or is it all along the fuel lines as well? Genuinely curious
@@commander2552 if you look up a schematic of the plane it has fuel tanks throughout the wings and auxiliary tanks in the bomb bay, plus anywhere vapour collects can explode. Engines catch fire but don't explode
The tail at 1:25 is most certainly from the French B-17 "F-BEEA", which actually crashed and burned during the filming.
The crew survived.
No it is not. The French B-17 crashed after this scene was taken. They made a full size replica tail and used an pembroke aircraft and hacked its fuselage to pieces.
How tho
Unfortunately, they lost control!
I remember back when they were making the movie, and it happened. They interviewed one of the production crew, who was present when it happened. She recounted how as she was watching the crash, she said to herself, ..."oh no dear God, this is only a movie". Luckily as you said the crew survived, but a piece of history was destroyed. I know people are opposed to this, but I wish they wouldn't take these planes up anymore. A replica is one thing, but when one of the originals is destroyed, it cannot be replaced.
@@jjahsepuyeshd I do understand what you mean. But that crash was not intentional. It just happened and was an accident. Movie might be helping to keep the airframe longer airworthy as it requires a lot of money to maintain these. Planes belong to the skies and should be flown as long as possible. Only when there is too much stress damage and beyond repair, then to museum.
My uncle flew in a B 17 out of Foggia, Italy. He actually watched a crash just like the one in the movie. He said even if they shut down the engines and feathered the props, you always risked an explosion due to fuel vapors or even a small amount of fuel in the tanks. He sbould know, he survived over 50 missions.
Conversely, I had an uncle who was a B-17 navigator...and the sole survivor of not only his crew but an entire nine-ship formation that got bounced over the North Sea during an unescorted night strike. The plane just disintegrated around him: one moment he was at the little desk in the nose compartment under the cockpit and the next he was falling through the sky. Supposedly only one other guy managed to hit the silk but didn't survive the boat ride back to shore.
I worked with a man named John White . He was an amazing artist , he used to paint the pictures on the planes for his squadron. He told me some of the bad things he witnessed . He worked with Boeing for 40 years ,and retired, being bored, he worked in a grocery store with me. He painted a B17 on the back of my bomber jacket, somebody offered me $ 400 for it..... I still have it noway am I giving it up
@@blackjac5000 That's fucking terrifying
@@blackjac5000 Sounds like the oxygen lines ripped. B17s had an issue where the oxygen lines would get torn by the movement of the engineers turret, causing an explosion
Oh, hi. I'm an italian that lives in Rome, but my whole family is originally from Foggia and my brother also was born there
I remember watching a documentary on PBS called The War. There was a bit about the B-17's and the narrator said 25 combat missions were required before the crew completed their tour of duty and went on saying that because of the high casualty rate in the Air Force, the average number of missions a B-17 completed before being shot down, was 11.
"bomber crew" was the most dangerous service in all the armed forces (among those made by a significant number of people).
Amazing how many B-17 movies have a one wheel crash landing.
@@bigiron383 that was a common thing with the bombers. They would take so much damage that parts start failing to work, especially the landing gear. That’s why they have the manual hand cranks to lower the wheels, they even had one for the bomb doors in case it failed to open or close.
Yep. One of the bits of trivia I find intriguing is that the 8th Air Force, alone, had more personnel KIA in WWII than the USMC (26,000 compared to 19,733). That's how much of a meat grinder aerial combat was at the time.
The tour length increased during the war, and so did survivability. It got bumped to 30 and then 35 missions as the quality of opposition continued to decline.
1:20 The look of a kid who's seen that too many times.
seen what?
Bet it happened a lot, young kids seeing things that should never of happened.
@@florjanbrudar692 People dying.
@@bartman9400 Many of the soldiers who enlisted in WWII were as young as sixteen. It wouldn't surprise me if Rascal was that young.
@@Sigma0283 Rascal was 18
well at least they didn't CGI the shit out of it.
I remeber seeing this part of the movie and the ending years ago (I didn't watch the full movie)
It frightens me how absolutely real that model looked, especially when it got closer to the camera
1/7 scale, that size helps to get the details in there.
There was no good reason for that B-17 to explode like that unless there was ordinance still stuck in the bomb bay - something very uncommon.
I looked this up, and apparently (not sure how accurate this is) there was some design flaw where busted fuel lines would leak fumes into the body of the plane. The engines, likely on fire would initiate the explosion. The pilot probably didn't have enough time to cut the fuel to that engine. And then it sits there with limited air flow.
There was good reason for the B17 to explode. The B17 exploded due to leaking fuel vapour igniting. A genuine danger that still exists today when an aircraft crashes lands on its fuselage and wings and not its landing gear. This B17 one-wheel down crash landing and explosion in the film was based like for like on an actual B17 that crashed and exploded the same way during WW2. Each tragic event of a B17 portrayed in the movie is an accurate recreation of a tragic event that really happened to B17 bombers during WW2.
It's a Boeing
Every time I watch this scene, I think -- it would have been a smart move to kill the ignition / engines a moment before touchdown! Might have prevented the explosion. :-(
Absolutely!
Yeah Fire was the killer of many Bombers, hell like 85% of B-17s had WOODEN FLOORS in them! And I don't think these planes had lightning rods, so its a possibility these things could get hit by lightning right?
Friction alone would cause sparks. Not sure if that model let the pilots dump their fuel in-flight, but that might have helped. Then again, it’s the fumes that burn.
Maybe but we don’t know what happened inside the bomber, a crash landing like that could’ve disoriented the pilots and crew, they could have been injured and weren’t thinking of shutting off the engine. Plus if there was fuel leakage from sliding on the ground or from being hit and friction could’ve caused a big combustion. Overall it’s 50/50
imagine doing a long flight like that and having that much fuel left in the plane to blow up like that?
Plane explodes
*Casually puts cigarette back in mouth
I don't recall the Memphis Belle ever "crashed". It made it through all 25 sorties (or missions) in great condition with the 26th sortie being flown across the "pond" back to the US
I think they are referring to crash sequences of the movie, there is a second and third "crash" video with dogfights
I think it’s the movie, Memphis Belle, but it’s not the Memphis Belle because the Memphis Belle is still alive. It’s in Dayton Ohio Air Force Museum. It’s pretty nice to see it going back tomorrow
Oscar-winning flinch at 1:16
The explosion really shocked me when I first watched it, however in that it looks like the tail gunner had a chance of surviving
To be honest though the crew were most likely all in the center of the plane when they landed
@@bonzomcdrumcat4989 true but I doubt the navigator and bombardier which stay in the nose of the aircraft would be in the middle
plane has a bigger explosion then the bombs it carried.
@@tinto278 nope, b-17s averaged several 500lb bombs and even a single one going off could make a bigger explosion than this
**plane skids to a halt**
Me: "Any landing you can walk away from is a go-"
**plane explodes**
_"Oh"_
0:58 Rip camera
What a great shot though
Was a miniature plane, fooled ya didn't it. Miniature department killed it on this film, fooled us all.
@@MerchantIvoryfilms Here we go again. It's a movie, what do you expect? 675 ton fully working bomber from 1935? For fuck's sake!
Помню в РБ на одном движке прилетел на базу с поле боя. Б17. На подлете к базе вижу 2 метки врага. летят комне. Позвал союзника на помощ. Отозвался случайный союзник и передал продержатся. И что летит уже. Первого который подлетел, слил удачно петровичем. А когда и второй за ним заходил на шесть, подоспел союзник и завязался между ними догфаит. Но тем не менее тот последни пробил и второй движок изща чего тот уже начал грется и дыметь. С пробитыми частями фузеляжа и отколотыми частями оперения крыла с небольшим креном в правый крыло. Я думал что движок не вытянет и на этом все. Отыгрался. Но все же я дотянул до глисады и коптя движками и креном, удачно посадил старушку. Тот союзник вышел победителем против врага. И пролетая спросил как я там. Все норм. Спасибо. Чинюсь и бк пополняю. И тут уже игра завершился нашей победой. Доброе воспоминания из далекого 14го года.
The B-17G "Nine o Nine" crashed today during an emergency landing.. no good details yet but considering the aircraft veered off the runway this is kind of what I imagine. If the landing gear was damaged by hitting something the plane would be out of control on the ground.
I've been watching that in the news.. Few details but I've heard seven have died... Tragic loss of life and history! Prayers to those who passed..
I went aboard her a couple months before at a different air show. I could barely fit at the roof gunner station. That combined with the massive price tag put me off to taking a ride in her.
Notice Port outer engine lost 2 blades the its still rotating all 3 before the explosion.
Great movie. Amazing actors. Where did they go?
A visually convincing crash landing, but its just a large R/C B-17. If you look closely at the push rod tubes on the radial engines, you can tell its a fake. The engines on a genuine Boeing B-17 don't look like that at all.
heffo and juff because they're going to crash a functional, historical bomber
Great observation professor...
What is this film name?
War Thunder physics be like
0:14 Not sure how many times I have seen this movie, but I never noticed Eric Stoltz dropping his cig before.
"Missed it by that much"
10-year-old me yelling at the screen: “Dump your damn fuel!”
More like turn off your maggs and cut fuel before landing
@@BradyBaseball13 can you elaborate on that? Sorry the only plane’s controls I’m familiar with is a 747-400
The b-17 couldn’t dump fuel. And piston aircraft are run off a system that powers the spark plugs named the “magneto system” or maggs for short. You turn that off to inhibit the ability from the spark plugs firing and igniting leaking fuel. And if you cut fuel to the engine it will not pump that fuel to the engine, keeping the fuel away from potential fires. Also if they turned off their generators that would also help with a fire hazard.
@@BradyBaseball13 ah okay makes sense. Thanks man
1:20
Me everytime I crash landed in the airfield in War Thunder.
The tail gunner could have survived that
the crash looks real but the explosion ruined the scene. Its impossible for an empty fuel and bomb aircraft to explode FROM THE INSIDE
No one said the fuel was empty
@@mikejordan8259 B17 2 ways trip from England to Germany and not running out of fuel? I don't think so. My point is the plane's replica explode from the inside of the body, looks really fake
@@ALcaponechannel of course.. they just put a bomb inside a B17 mockup and blew it up.. but as you say that doesnt happen like that.. the B17 could had catch fire and burn ..but not just sudenly explode specially when there wasnt even any fire or smoke after it stoped
Air tanks might be at fault, even when not fully loaded they are extremely dangerous and if hit might set the whole thing ablaze in an explosive fashion.
That explosion was took from one b17 that did explode during filming
Their reaction was like: - Ah, look another one. This shit happens every day.
The B-17 used in the film is actually Sally B but they repainted one side to Memphis bell since the B-17 is now kept at the duxford air museum in the UK and I know that because I saw it there
The B/17 in the film is actually a miniature, I don’t know where you got your info from, but it’s wrong.
Well no actually im right since the B-17 was used at some point but probably not through the whole film don't test I'm an aviation expert and I saw it in real life all you have seen is an internet photo
Image not knowing how to use -
It was this moment where we lost camera men joe, one of the first camera men lost in the war
Did anyone know the nose art of this B-17 that Blew up in the Begining?
🐺
Johnny B looks like Paddlin Madeline
what movie?
Well ...that's encouraging.
I would still take that plane then fly Wizz Air again.
0:59 R.I.P The Cameramen...😔
They died wha
The propeller blade that flew off at 00:56, reattached themselves at 1:07.
That was because they used footage of an actual b-17 that burnt down upon takeoff
Lol it blew up from the fuselage! The engines were the only thing that could explode like that on a bomber. Thats not even a real B-17 lol
+camflex66 Yep. It's a replica
It has no ball turret, or any belly turret for that matter.
Of course it's not a real B-17. It's a large model.
It could hav blown up from the fuselage, if they landed with a full bomb load, but they would never try that. If they had been unable to drop the bombs, they would have bailed out.
from the look of it. I think the safest place during the explosion was the tail. It looks like the tail wasn't even touched by the explosion
fuel tanks would be almost empty... lots of fuel air mix in the tanks.. that could explode. "minimally empty".. very explosive.
i thought the crew were gonna escape until the bomber exploded
So what blew up? Did the plane not drop its bombs?
Why exactly did the plane explode from the middle?! WTF
Film name?
"Come on come on, hurry up, hurry up let's get outta here"
Could the tail gunner survive that if his lungs wasnt blown out by the shockwave? it looks rather intact and far from explosion
Много ли там оставалось горючего чтобы был такой взрыв?
So this thing was supposed to be on display in Memphis Tennessee where it's from but for some reason they decided against.
Why it exploded?
@Ceffereno Rivera there wouldnt be a bomb load left
@Ceffereno Rivera i didnt made the movie and i think this was bullshit.. so i dont need to explain anything.. im pointing out this plane wouldnt had bombs left when coming for landing.. specially with damage ..even if they had not droped the bombs they would had dumped them and if not posible they would had bailed out
How
Maybe god did not like them
+Lucas Martínez Parra The B-17 was damaged from inside and destroyed. Many reasons such as, fuel in damaged engine, fire in the interior or even a pilot smoking.
The GREATEST plane ever built the B-17 .
haha
How did all the propellers get bent back like that?
When a prop plane lands with no gear the props are the first thing to touch the ground, they get pushed back under the plane since its moving forwards
Go search RUclips for gear up landings. There are plenty of videos where props get bent up like that, now I'm no pilot but I understand they shut down the engines to try and minimize the damage to the props in such a situation.
Oh no, the Flying Fortress only have one landing gear, but the other landing gear was malfunctioned they're doomed!
if the b-17 is returning to base its common sense that it will have almost no fuel and barely any fuel reserves. if they have dropped the load where is the explosions coming from? that part always confused me because the aircraft should be in a safe state to land. its also procedure in that if the aircraft is damaged or is doing an emergency landing to either dump fuel, or put into a holding pattern to burn fuel so when it does land its not a full of fuel. but its important to understand a movie is a movie and its done for effect.
1.25. "Hey, looks alright to me. They are ok,certainly."
1:25
My ant who leaved in Norwich we would went on the summer time to visit her from Belfast me and mom and dad she used to tell me about us bomber crashing in front of her she was coming home from work on her bicycle the guy was looking at her and she was looking at him below up that scene from Memphis Belle of the crash landing remind me of my ant she was 87 when she died she was one of the best
Примерно так я приземляюсь в War Thunder
Помню в РБ на одном движке прилетел на базу с поле боя. Б17. На подлете к базе вижу 2 метки врага. летят комне. Позвал союзника на помощ. Отозвался случайный союзник и передал продержатся. И что летит уже. Первого который подлетел, слил удачно петровичем. А когда и второй за ним заходил на шесть, подоспел союзник и завязался между ними догфаит. Но тем не менее тот последни пробил и второй движок изща чего тот уже начал грется и дыметь. С пробитыми частями фузеляжа и отколотыми частями оперения крыла с небольшим креном в правый крыло. Я думал что движок не вытянет и на этом все. Отыгрался. Но все же я дотянул до глисады и коптя движками и креном, удачно посадил старушку. Тот союзник вышел победителем против врага. И пролетая спросил как я там. Все норм. Спасибо. Чинюсь и бк пополняю. И тут уже игра завершился нашей победой. Доброе воспоминания из далекого 14го года.
It's only a model....don't get too excited
moment in war thunder when you miss runway
Hey, Look! Samwise gamgee is smocking cigarrets
why isn’t anyone talking about how the b-17 that exploded doesn’t have a belly ball turret
Ball turret
The ball turret could be retracted.
@@springfield9478 thats the b24
Because it's been shot away like what happens to the Memphis Belle later on , same deal with the single wheel down.
I loved the movie however there where 2 b17s that finnished their 24 missions prior to the bell
Knew it was fake the first time I saw it. Props that are powered when they strike the ground are twisted, not just bent back. Also the prop on the #1 engine was still turning after striking the ground. That doesn't happen either.
The air war was so bloody it was the equivalent of a second front form 1942 on. 160,000 Allied airmen died in the skies over Germany, including 80,000 Americans, which is as many as were killed in the Western European campaign. It was a horrendously costly and inefficient campaign for extremely dubious strategic value - German war production continued to rise until mid-1944 despite the destruction of its cities.
The Americans, to their credit, stuck to logistical targets and did not engage in saturation bombing of civilians until near the very end of the war, and conducted the very effective bombing of oil refineries, storage depots and transportation networks from 1943-45 that DID eventually severely hurt German war production.
From what I've read/seen on tv; The US never got close to their targets until much later in the war. The british had began in 39 trying to hit targets by day but the skills and equipment hadnt been developed yet and lots of planes were lost. Once the bombing of london started there really wasnt any moral or technical issue with bombing german cities by night. The Americans thought heavily armed and armoured bombers flying at day could protect themselves and hit targets accurately - they were not correct; and most of their bombs wound up in the same places as the Brits did (all over the place). Better equipment and escort fighters eventually lead to more accurate bombing of refineries though apparently.
The moral issues remained, because the Germans did actually attempt to limit their bombing of London to the factories and port facilities of the East End of London. The British engaged in saturation bombing where they attempted to kill as many civilians as possible, based on one extremely dubious and poorly researched study of 'dehousing' conducted in 1941 that was challenged by other reports before and after it. But they seized on that one, motivated as much by emotion as rational thought.
Arthur Harris of Bomber Command fame actually gloried in the ruin and death the bombing brought to Germany. (To be fair, so did Curtis LeMay, the American commander who bombed Japan's cities indiscriminately.) He flew into a rage when Eisenhower requisitioned most of his fleet for the far more effective close air support it provided during the Normandy Campaign. Harris was so careless with the lives of his own men he was referred to as "Butcher" Harris.
Dresden was where the bombing campaign's moral issues become most stark. The city had no strategic value and was bombed three months before the end of the war, killing tens of thousands of civilians.
Obviously, the Germans did not have any claim to the moral high ground, as what they did on the ground was so much worse. But my point is that the air campaign was a terrible waste of life and resources on both sides that, had the Allies not been as driven by vengeance, might have been conducted much more efficiently, even with the technical limitations of the 1940s. For instance, Albert Speer said that had the Allies conducted 24/7 bombing of just railroads or factories, the German war effort would have collapsed in months. Instead, the British would bomb the railroads and factories during the night, and during the day, slave labourers would rebuild them, while the Americans were bombing other targets.
The germans attempted to bomb ports and factories in the same way the British did. For example Coventry was an old city and the factories were entwined with the housing areas - as was the case with many of the german cities. The target would have officially been 'factory districts' - knowing full well that thats where the houses were - the british and the germans both had this mentality, the British were just better equipped to carry it out as the war went on.
The US bombing was no better - it was inaccurate, especially at the beginning. Bombs falling on houses in daylight are not in any way better than bombs falling on houses at night. As for Dresden; 722 of the bombers were British and 527 US - if you want to believe that the US bombs were all falling on factories whilst the british ones were inaccurate instruments of death... seems a bit naive. Dresden was a medieval city largely made of timber houses with factories all around - it was always going to burn - in fact, this was part of the reason it was selected. Toward the end of the war, targets that would burn were chosen simply *because* they would burn. That goes for both the US and British.
Shame really isnt it - it probably would have been beautiful to see today. I dont know if this is true, but i've heard the argument that the west knew that the soviets would inherit the eastern cities and just wanted to destroy them first - hence a big raid toward the end of the war. The place was full of refugees too. If we'd lost the war (hypothetically) it would have been considered a war crime.
The damage caused by individual raids to the war machine is difficult to judge except in individual cases - i.e. when the RAF sank the Tirpitz, or blew up the dams at the ruhr, or when US and Brit bombers specifically targeted refineries and rail yards etc.
However what is clear, is that the strategic campaign against cities in effect opened up a third front for germany - 2 million men were required to man the anti aircraft guns and resources had to be directed to supplying this effort. Anti aircraft guns shooting down planes would certainly have been translated into tanks killing men on the ground if the air campaign hadn't been carried out.
From a moral point of view, the germans had already bombed warsaw, rotterdam, london etc. at the outset of the war and before they were attacked. These were not precision strikes, they were trying to intimidate populace; morally they did not have a leg to stand on.
Finally (and sorry for the long message - i just love war history despite hating war) Arthur Harris was loved by his aircrews; despite his nickname. Before he arrived, there was no clear strategy in relation to bomber command and their equipment was not suitable. It was common to send 12 slow low flying Sterling bombers to attack berlin during day time for example - and it was common for not a single one to return. Arthur was the person who called a spade a spade - i.e. mass formations, of heavy bombers at night with a clear goal of knocking germany out by destroying cities; demanding resources for the effort, making sure his crews were looked after as well as they could be and so on.
The bombers being taken for close air support during the invasion made complete sense - everyone at the time could see that - however Arthur was convinced his method would work and wanted to keep trying - that enthusiasm and belief is what made him the right man for the job.
He watched the bombs fall on london early in the war and there are two quotes which i think concisely reflect what drove him and convinced him his path was the right one;
1. The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Statement of 1942, at the start of the bombing campaign against Germany
2. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier
Well, you know your history dude. I appreciate an exchange with someone who does know what they're talking about rather than reactionary comments.
I should have clarified in my initial comment that by "until near the end of the war" I meant that I was aware that the Americans indeed bombed Dresden with the intent to kill indiscriminately. And they did so in the entire Pacific Campaign, of course. I won't argue the moral issues on the German side, because they were indeed the first to engage in unprovoked terror bombing, and they actually killed as many if not more people in the aerial bombardment of Soviet cities than died in the bombing of Germany.
I really do think there was something wrong with Harris, however. IMO he had a sadistic streak that probably weighed in the balance in favour of the dehousing strategy, although he was far from the only one who wanted revenge and only one of many individuals who decided the character of the bombing campaign. I think that if the British had debated the issue longer in 1942 and not let the desire for vengeance cloud their judgment, they could have conducted a much more efficient campaign and ended the war far sooner.
IMO Curtis LeMay was also bloodthirsty, which almost had world-ending consequences in 1962 when as USAAF Chief of Staff he could not adjust his wartime kill-em-all mentality to the realities of the nuclear age. He actually believed the 'first-strike' policy against the Soviet Union would work, because he *wanted* to believe it. But it was impossible, the Soviets had too many nuclear-armed jets and submarines, and he knew it. He also fiercely advocated for the bombing of Cuba, an unbelievably dangerous gamble even given what they knew at the time (and now we know it would have been suicidal). But I digress.
You have given a good overview of a defense of the air campaign. My own stance is still a critical one. With that in mind, I think you might like the 2006 debate between A.C. Grayling and Christopher Hitchens (RIP) here, after Grayling wrote a book critical of the campaign called 'Among the Dead Cities': ruclips.net/video/3doYSqBWhZI/видео.html
Thanks mate I'll check that link out. I love these sorts of chats - ideally I like sitting in a dark pub drinking beer talking endlessly about WW2. Good chatting to you.
BOM-BER-MEN
Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a crew
hollywood gasoline explosion. badly done.
the whole film is badly done.. frictional crew and events in a film about real people.. shockingly bad.
@@gailraby1722 Have you watched the movie? No, right?
I watched it all really good
Wha- why tf did it just blow up?
There’s a hole in your left wing!
I like b-17 but when they crash 😭
Sad when they crash but hey Memphis Belle was alright after all
I hate when B17s spontaneously explode.
That never would have happened...Someone explain to me a plane comes to a halt and then explodes from the inside like a bomb.
I'm no expert but I have read a bit about the B-17. While they're reliable they we prone to leak fuel and oil sometimes. Crews were even forbidden to take smoking materials with them on the planes because they could start a fire.
Now this is just a movie but obviously this plane was battle damaged but who is to say that fumes or something didn't leak into the cabin and cause the plane to explode?
Michael Bay was onboard.
This happened, but not quite as depicted. There's B&W footage out there of a B-17 bellying in with no gear down and as the plane slides to a stop one of the wings blew up and turned the plane into a pyre. Vapor in an empty fuel tank is MUCH more volatile than a full tank and sparks from a damaged engine likely set them off.
The real footage is a lot more chilling than this bit.
+DJSbros The engines may got damaged during the back to the base and did have fuel on, causing it to explode.
I like how all American movies where un-logical explosion happen.
That B-17 probably failed to drop its bombs.
So, they really blow up a bomber for this screen ?
The craahing plane has no ball turret juat before touch down
Awesome
Hated this movie, because it is no where close to actual events, the original documentary of the Memphis Belle is a great piece of work. Watch the original, and you will see that the movie is no where close to what really happened.
oh no no no, come on that's not how a crash landing explosion looks like.
3/10 for that bad timed wrong placed explosion
7/10 for that crash landing
С чего он взорвался???
1:15 Free fire danger moment
It was mine and my ants favourite movie
Poor camera man..
Got sliced to pieces...
Truth is the Memphis Bell never crashed at the end it's all a Hollywood ending and not what really happened,she wasn't crashed or heavily damaged she landed normal and that was it.
LoL
Welcome to war childrens
That would be 50 million SL
I bet the cameraman needed new undies at 0:58 ;)
Не убрал одно шасси. Не сбросил неизрасходованный боезапас. Не верю, что столько ошибок совершил опытный лётчик.
No bombs, would have dumbed most of their excess fuel. Makes a great scence but an explosion like this on landing is pretty much impossible
That explosion was totally unnecessary and hilarious
Bruh first i was like 😟 And then 😧
What the fuck exploded though? I mean, id understand if a fuel tank got ruptured in the wings but then the wing would blow up and it wouldnt be nearly as big of an explosion
What the hell blew up?
Memphis belle Move i see 3 crash b17
b-17 filled with tnt
Well at least they're out now 😕
Unless it had a 'hang up' ie a bomb that didn't release, can't see why it would have gone up like that. Not enough fuel left after a trip like that for that kind of ending. Anyone?
Fuel levels were typically low when they returned to base, but fuel vapors are still dangerous, especially when there is battle damage. There could also be hydraulic fluid leaking somewhere hot and could also catch on fire. There are many instances of bombers returning from missions and burning after crash-landing. While it isn't the Hollywood-type explosion, fires do spread quickly. Refer to the B-29 that attempted to fly off the ice where it crashed, and the APU motor dislodged, caught fire and burned down the plane.
guys i dont think thats how planes land...
Ебать реализм...
Me in War thunder