Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
9/16/2019 10:09:13 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/5/2012 11:14:14 AM EDT
I've seen that "Red Tails" commercial a few times now and couldn't help but notice the wording used.

Not to denigrate their service but isn't that overstating things a bit much?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:16:22 AM EDT
I don't know but I wonder how that movie will compare to The Tuskegee Airmen
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:16:23 AM EDT
No.

They fought like lions and were heroes in every sense of the word, but they did not change the war. The P-51, which they flew, did change the war though. P-51's were able to escort bombers to their targets and back, which made bomber strikes more effective and increased bomber survival.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:16:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
I've seen that "Red Tails" commercial a few times now and couldn't help but notice the wording used.

Not to denigrate their service but isn't that overstating things a bit much?


They changed quite a few things, but not the war.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:17:07 AM EDT
No to your first question and yes to your second.

I had the honor of meeting one of the Tuskegee airmen at an airshow in 1999 and got him to sign my book of P-51 artwork.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:17:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:17:40 AM EDT by P08]
Maybe not the war although I think they did help lots of bomber pilots return home. They did change the military and it's views that blacks were not suitable for anything but grave detail and support functions.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:19:17 AM EDT
It might be overstating to say that any one unit changed the outcome of the war, but one might say that the Tuskegee Airmen changed as much as the 100th Infantry Battalion or the 442nd RCT did, insofar as they challenged the sort of horseshit racism then prevalent in American society and institutions.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:19:47 AM EDT
Redtails is going to be HORRIBLE

first off, P51s were not F22s
second, the CG looks cheap and crappy

the best thing to note about the tuskagee airmen is that they didnt lose a single bomber
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:23:23 AM EDT
Considering how well they performed their duties, I'd say a lot of targets were hit that otherwise wouldn't have been.

Depending on the importance of those targets, they may very well have changed the war.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:23:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:25:43 AM EDT by AdviceDog]
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
Redtails is going to be HORRIBLE

first off, P51s were not F22s
second, the CG looks cheap and crappy

the best thing to note about the tuskagee airmen is that they didnt lose a single bomber


I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


added:

"MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — At least 25 bombers being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen over Europe during World War II were shot down by enemy aircraft, according to a new Air Force report.

The report contradicts the legend that the famed black aviators never lost a plane to fire from enemy aircraft. But historian William Holton said the discovery of lost bombers doesn't tarnish the unit's record.

"It's impossible not to lose bombers," said Holton, national historian for Tuskegee Airmen Inc."

USA Today
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:27:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
Redtails is going to be HORRIBLE

first off, P51s were not F22s
second, the CG looks cheap and crappy

the best thing to note about the tuskagee airmen is that they didnt lose a single bomber


I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.

There isn't much they could do about FLAK.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:27:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:31:09 AM EDT by BakerMike]
Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


Indeed. From wikipedia:


The Tuskegee Airmen were credited by higher commands with the following accomplishments:

*15,533 combat sorties, 1578 missions
*One hundred and twelve German aircraft destroyed in the air, another 150 on the ground
*Nine hundred and fifty railcars, trucks and other motor vehicles destroyed
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire
*A good record of protecting U.S. bombers,[53] losing only 25 on hundreds of missions.[54]
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:27:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher15:
Redtails is going to be HORRIBLE

first off, P51s were not F22s
second, the CG looks cheap and crappy

the best thing to note about the tuskagee airmen is that they didnt lose a single bomber

Sure they didn't. Not while "under their care" anyway, but they flew P-40s, P-47s, and P-51s, and on many missions could not escort the bombers all the way to the target or back. I'm sure scads of bombers were lost on every mission the Tuskeegee Airmen participated in. I'm not sure historical record would bear out their perfect win record if it was scrutinized carefully anyway.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:28:49 AM EDT
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:30:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:

I've seen that "Red Tails" commercial a few times now and couldn't help but notice the wording used.

Not to denigrate their service but isn't that overstating things a bit much?

You ain't gonna sell a movie without using superlatives and hyperbole.

"The feel reasonably ok movie of the year!"


Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:30:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BakerMike:
It might be overstating to say that any one unit changed the outcome of the war, but one might say that the Tuskegee Airmen changed as much as the 100th Infantry Battalion or the 442nd RCT did, insofar as they challenged the sort of horseshit racism then prevalent in American society and institutions.



I think these guys did. 393d Bombardment Squadron, Heavy, 509th Composite Group.




Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:31:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:33:40 AM EDT by HUMONGO]
They kicked some ass and did their job just like every other serviceman in WWII, but they didn't "change" anything. They took pressure off other resources. Anything else is revisionist history.

The best thing to come out of Tuskeegee is still peanut butter!
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:31:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:33:55 AM EDT by Spade]
Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
Redtails is going to be HORRIBLE

first off, P51s were not F22s
second, the CG looks cheap and crappy

the best thing to note about the tuskagee airmen is that they didnt lose a single bomber


I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


added:

"MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — At least 25 bombers being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen over Europe during World War II were shot down by enemy aircraft, according to a new Air Force report.

The report contradicts the legend that the famed black aviators never lost a plane to fire from enemy aircraft. But historian William Holton said the discovery of lost bombers doesn't tarnish the unit's record.

"It's impossible not to lose bombers," said Holton, national historian for Tuskegee Airmen Inc."

USA Today


IIRC, the Army was pushing the myth during WW2 for morale purposes and was then accepted as fact.

\/\/ Uh, lots of white pilots would've probably been racist. That would've been the prevailing mood of the time, after all. It doesn't make those pilots "bad", just the environment they were in.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:31:45 AM EDT
I'm just hoping they don't portray white pilots as inept or racist
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:32:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Are you questioning the prowess of the P-47 Thunderbolt?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:34:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Are you questioning the prowess of the P-47 Thunderbolt?


Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:35:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:37:00 AM EDT by LePew]
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Not the only time. Some navy pilot (from Enterprise, I think) sank a destroyer the same way.

His report over the radio:

"Sighted steamer. Strafed same. Sank same. Some sight! Signed, Smith"

Yes, I'm serious.

ETA: I think he managed to blow up one of the boilers but not sure.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:36:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


hits on torpedoes or depth charges
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:36:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:39:39 AM EDT by Jman78]
I have all the respect in the world for what the Tuskegee Airmen did, and they are true heroes, as all are vets are. But this film ( the way the TV ad portrayed it) seems like a blaxploitation remake. I hope i am wrong, cause it would be very wrong to take the tale of some very brave men, and turn it into a black pride parade.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:38:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:39:11 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By HUMONGO:
They kicked some ass and did their job just like every other serviceman in WWII, but they didn't "change" anything. They took pressure off other resources. Anything else is revisionist history.

The best thing to come out of Tuskeegee is still peanut butter!

This.

Brave men and a talented squadron, facing a lot of bigotry and preconceived notions, but they did not alter much in terms of the struggle against the Axis powers.

The movie looks like a steaming pile of dogshit, and I will cringe in embarrassment the first time some ruh-tard chimes in on ARFcom and calls it "mindless entertainment".
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:39:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Are you questioning the prowess of the P-47 Thunderbolt?




Serious answer (limited by my knowledge of period naval architecture, however):

Destroyers tended to not really have ANY armor (see USS Laffey, "The Ship That Would Not Die," 5-inch 38-caliber guns in twin turrets...with non-armor sheet metal plating).

So a .50 bullet (or 8) would probably zip right through the decking and maybe some of the hull, too.

Get a squadron of P-47s making continual gun passes on the thing and you could probably poke enough holes in it to overwhelm the pumps and sink it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:41:30 AM EDT
It's hard to say whether any one unit changed the war.

What can be said for sure is that they fought the hardest they could. They fought, bled, and died for their country. And that is enough to know they're heroes.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:42:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Are you questioning the prowess of the P-47 Thunderbolt?




Are we really going to argue about movie special effects and there validity in the real world ? What was the gun Al Pacino used ? Where is my mega mag with unlimited rounds ?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:44:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BakerMike:
Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


Indeed. From wikipedia:


The Tuskegee Airmen were credited by higher commands with the following accomplishments:

*15,533 combat sorties, 1578 missions
*One hundred and twelve German aircraft destroyed in the air, another 150 on the ground
*Nine hundred and fifty railcars, trucks and other motor vehicles destroyed
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire
*A good record of protecting U.S. bombers,[53] losing only 25 on hundreds of missions.[54]


Trying to find reference now, but, along with the bogus claim of never losing a bomber while they were tasked with escort, the ship they claimed destroyed was not a Destroyer supposedly. That info was the subject of an article in a British aviation magazine a month or two back, and they even ID'd the Italian ship that was sunk, but for the life of me I cannot find the article and I tossed the magazine.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:45:18 AM EDT
Didn't make a difference if they had been there or not. If not someone else would have taken their place and probably done close to, if not just as good of a job doing it as they did.

The difference is, they were there and they did do it. In the grand scheme of the war they were just another cog in the US war machine. On a personal level it was a whole nother story. I suppose that could be said of any war.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:45:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:51:17 AM EDT by Spade]
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By LoBrau:
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire

How in the fuck does one go about sinking a destroyer with a machine gun? Lucky hit on the magazine somehow?


Are you questioning the prowess of the P-47 Thunderbolt?




For a real answer: evidently the ship sunk, TA-27, was really what we at the time would call a "destroyer escort" (plus a Destroyer today does not equal a destroyer of WW2. Today they're way bigger).

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/captured/torpedoboats/ta/ta27/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete_class_torpedo_boat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedoboot_Ausland

So I'd guess not that heavily armored. And Italian built.

Part of the problem with what "type" it is probably has to do with translations. You could call the ship a "torpedo boat" but in Italian (the guys that made it) destroyers are called "cacciatorpediniere" which from google translator is from the words "hunter" and "torpedo". I figure thinking of it like a DE is probably the best.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:46:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:47:41 AM EDT by SevenMMmag]
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Originally Posted By BakerMike:
Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


Indeed. From wikipedia:


The Tuskegee Airmen were credited by higher commands with the following accomplishments:

*15,533 combat sorties, 1578 missions
*One hundred and twelve German aircraft destroyed in the air, another 150 on the ground
*Nine hundred and fifty railcars, trucks and other motor vehicles destroyed
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire
*A good record of protecting U.S. bombers,[53] losing only 25 on hundreds of missions.[54]


Trying to find reference now, but, along with the bogus claim of never losing a bomber while they were tasked with escort, the ship they claimed destroyed was not a Destroyer supposedly. That info was the subject of an article in a British aviation magazine a month or two back, and they even ID'd the Italian ship that was sunk, but for the life of me I cannot find the article and I tossed the magazine.


it was an Ariete class torpedo boat destroyer. Smaller than our DE's at the time
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:47:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:49:01 AM EDT by Infallible]
Not at all. By the time they were in it, they were facing complete rank amateurs who were vastly outnumbered flying inferior machinery. Any other group regardless of color would have achieved the same.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:51:26 AM EDT
YES!!!

Along with a few million other Americans.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:52:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Originally Posted By BakerMike:
Originally Posted By AdviceDog:
I've heard from several sources that the myth of 'not losing a single bomber' isn't true.


Indeed. From wikipedia:


The Tuskegee Airmen were credited by higher commands with the following accomplishments:

*15,533 combat sorties, 1578 missions
*One hundred and twelve German aircraft destroyed in the air, another 150 on the ground
*Nine hundred and fifty railcars, trucks and other motor vehicles destroyed
*One destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire
*A good record of protecting U.S. bombers,[53] losing only 25 on hundreds of missions.[54]


Trying to find reference now, but, along with the bogus claim of never losing a bomber while they were tasked with escort, the ship they claimed destroyed was not a Destroyer supposedly. That info was the subject of an article in a British aviation magazine a month or two back, and they even ID'd the Italian ship that was sunk, but for the life of me I cannot find the article and I tossed the magazine.


It was TA-22 Giuseppi Missori, a torpedo boat, and they didn't sink it. It was badly damaged, and never fought again, it was scuttled in February 1945. The other claim is that it was TA-27 Aurige, however that ship was sunk off the coast of Elba June 9th, so it could not possibly be the ship that was claimed to have been sunk on June 25th.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:56:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Infallible:
Any other group regardless of color would have achieved the same.


I doubt that.

And there's a simple explanation as to why, and to why they would be 'better' than a lot of groups.

Originally, the military took all the eligible black pilots, which was selectively picked to begin with, and then put them through a training program designed to make them fail. A lot of people didn't want black pilots at all.
And then put them into one fighter group.

Basically they ended up with a single fighter group made up of the best black pilots available. It's simple statistics. With more white pilots needed you're simply going to get more 'average' guys because of the need to keep numbers up.



Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:57:08 AM EDT
In terms of racial equality and kicking aside the bullshit that "them nigrees ain't never gonna be smart 'nuff to fly any aeroplane" aside,they had a monumental impact.

In terms of changing the war in any groundbreaking way or actually being superior to other fighter squadrons? Not really. It is funny that they allowed the myth of never losing a single bomber to German fighters to be carried on so long but that's to be expected. It's hardly as if the military as an institution is opposed to letting facts get in the way of good publicity.

Their losses were actually pretty high,mainly due to them largely flying ground attack sorties but that also keys into their air combat record as well: the last year of the war,the Luftwaffe was stretched from thin to at places non-existant. The trailer looks absolutely horrible: the CGI is bad to begin with but it shouldn't have been too difficult to at least give the planes proper paintjobs. I guess they wanted to accentuate the fact that they're Nazi fighters with the pre-war style tail bands but - not to mention it just comes across as cheesy and a typical feel good movie that just happens to have fighter pilots.


I don't know,personally I find that historical revisionism is an insult to the truth but whatever,it's entertainment. It's actually more along the lines of wartime movies in that regard I guess but I gues the Band of Brothers treatment actually keeps some people away.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:59:36 AM EDT
Change the war? No.

But to say that they "did their part" would be a vast understatement.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:01:08 PM EDT
No, they didn't. They participated, fought hard, and fought well. But they made no bigger of an impact then hundreds of other units.

The movie looks like a complete sham. Just for one small example, I don't think the pilots would have talked "ghetto" in the 40's.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:07:57 PM EDT
One decorated "white pilot" who was there (and who later shot down migs as well), a friend of the family type, got pretty riled up just at the mention of the TA.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:12:08 PM EDT
Rewrite history, dare anyone to raise a peep, count on your audience believing every single scene.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:13:21 PM EDT
Considering my grandfather was protected by them they potentially changed my life, thats for sure.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:14:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 71mach103:
The movie looks like a complete sham. Just for one small example, I don't think the pilots would have talked "ghetto" in the 40's.


It's George Lucas. Of course it's a sham.

Also, every scene will be chock full of stuff filling the screen. ALL OVER.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:14:40 PM EDT
I thought the atom bomb changed the war.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:17:31 PM EDT
I'd rather see a movie about the Tuskegee Experiment. That might open up some eyes.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:17:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:17:58 PM EDT
no, they did an excellent job and were brave and deserve recognition for bravery. But did not directly change the war

Sounds like someone's agenda is reflecting through the big screen again.

another movie I have no desire to see. kinda like warhorse.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:18:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By morningwood1429:
I'm just hoping they don't portray white pilots as inept or racist


they will, it's the new "military movie" way Hart War, Wintalkers, Tears of the son, just off the top of my head.

those guys did their job like anyone else in WW2, it's Americans that won the war, but the movie will show that a persons race won the war

this is why i prefer WW2 movies in black and white, the older movies made it ok to pull for America, feel good about our country, and didn't have all the PC crap in them, it was ok to hate the enemy back then.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:20:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 12:20:40 PM EDT by Brutusfennicus]
Looks like revisionist history in the service of identity politics.
But then again, history's primary purpose these days is to make minorities and special interest groups feel good about themselves.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:28:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By morningwood1429:
I'm just hoping they don't portray white pilots as inept or racist


You can relax. It's not just the pilots.



It's every white person is a racist.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:28:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BakerMike:
It might be overstating to say that any one unit changed the outcome of the war, but one might say that the Tuskegee Airmen changed as much as the 100th Infantry Battalion or the 442nd RCT did, insofar as they challenged the sort of horseshit racism then prevalent in American society and institutions.


Is there a like button I can click?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top